Check pending payment requests and recent notifications.
View your pending payment requests and recent notifications.
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_notifications"
}
}| 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 is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. The word 'View' implies a safe, read-only operation, which is helpful but vague. It does not mention whether viewing marks notifications as read, whether pagination applies, or any other behavioral detail beyond the obvious.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the action and object, with no wasted words or redundancy.
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?
This is a very simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description adequately covers its purpose for such a low-complexity tool. Some may argue that the return format or notification types could be mentioned, but given the minimal surface area, the description is sufficiently complete.
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 accepts zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.
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 the specific verb 'View' and names the resource: 'pending payment requests and recent notifications.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like venmo_get_transactions (which lists transactions) and venmo_get_balance, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the function without mentioning exclusions or recommending it over other tools (e.g., venmo_get_transactions). The context of sibling tools is present but not leveraged in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.