payees_listRetrieve all payees—people or companies you can send payments to—for the account holder, so you can choose a recipient before making a payment.
Get all payees (people/companies you can send payments to) for the account holder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payees | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful domain gloss on what a payee is, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or filtering behavior beyond the implicit account-holder scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical defining 'payees' earns its place by disambiguating the term.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema describing the returns and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is essentially complete. Only minor details like pagination expectations are absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose meaning the description could usefully add.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Get all) and resource (payees) and even defines the domain concept (people/companies you can send payments to). It is easy to tell apart from payee_create/payee_delete by name, but the description itself never explicitly contrasts the listing scope with those siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for the account holder' implies the scope of the query, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite notes, and no mention of alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the list-style verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.