View all linked debit cards, credit cards, and bank accounts to manage your Venmo funding sources.
View your linked debit cards, credit cards, and bank accounts.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "venmo_get_cards"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'View' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects. It doesn't explicitly mention authentication, but the possessive 'your' implies personal data access, which is sufficient for a trivial getter.
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 that fully conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words.
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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, this description is complete: it states exactly what the user will see. There are no missing details that could affect invocation or interpretation.
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?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by enumerating the types of data returned (cards and bank accounts), aiding the agent in knowing what to expect.
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 'View' and enumerates the exact resources: linked debit cards, credit cards, and bank accounts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like venmo_get_balance or venmo_get_transactions.
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 context is clear: use this tool to view linked payment methods. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are obviously different in function, making the usage context unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.