loyverse_get_merchantFetch the account profile to get business name, country, and currency decimal places, establishing the money format for all other outputs.
Fetch the account profile: business name, country, and the currency with its decimal places. Call this first to know how to format money in every other result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating that the result determines currency formatting for all other operations and by listing the fields returned, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not go into response structure, but that is minor for a simple profile fetch.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, the returned fields follow, and the usage directive closes the description. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with no output schema, the description provides the key return fields and the practical reason to call it first. Nothing an agent needs to decide to invoke it is missing.
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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. This matches the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), names the resource ('account profile'), and enumerates the returned fields (business name, country, currency, decimal places). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like loyverse_list_stores or loyverse_get_customer because it targets the merchant account itself.
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 description gives explicit usage timing: 'Call this first to know how to format money in every other result.' This tells the agent when to invoke it and why, which is strong guidance for a zero-parameter tool with no natural alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.