Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

withdraws_get_methods

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves available withdrawal methods from the Aeza API so you can review payout options before initiating a withdrawal.

Instructions

Get withdraw methods GET /withdraws/methods

Tool call template

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": "withdraws_get_methods"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only the raw endpoint path 'GET /withdraws/methods' and says nothing about what a withdrawal method contains, whether results are user- or currency-scoped, or what the response looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the intent and no filler. It is terse to the point of being borderline under-specified rather than verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-argument read endpoint with full annotation coverage, the definition is callable, but it never explains what a 'withdraw method' is or how results are scoped, and there is no output schema to fall back on. A sentence on the return content would make it complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 disambiguate; the parameter dimension is satisfied by default. Schema coverage is reported as 100%.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get withdraw methods', which is clearly a read of available withdrawal methods. It does not distinguish itself from the similar siblings (withdraws_get_limits, withdraws_get_list), so it falls short of a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Offers no guidance on when to call this versus siblings such as withdraws_get_limits or withdraws_get_list, and no prerequisite or context (e.g., call before withdraws_init). The likely usage is only implied by the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools