Fetches the Aeza bonuses list to review account credits and available bonus records.
Get bonuses list GET /bonuses
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": "bonuses_get_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the entire safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond them – not whether results are paginated, filtered, or scoped to the caller's account.
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 short lines with no filler and the operation stated first, so it is efficiently sized. The terseness comes at the cost of usefulness rather than being a model of economy.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does not – there is no indication of the fields on a bonus record, list size, or whether the list is complete or truncated. For a trivial read tool this is tolerable but still an evident gap.
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 there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The empty schema is fully consistent with the stated 'GET /bonuses' form.
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 names a verb ('Get') and resource ('bonuses list') and adds the underlying endpoint 'GET /bonuses', so the operation is identifiable. However, it largely restates the tool name bonuses_get_list and does nothing to distinguish it from the many other *_get_list siblings or from bonuses_activate.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the enumeration counterpart to bonuses_activate purely from the names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.