veriko_list_public_plansList public plans for SPEI transfer operations without an API key. Get available plan options directly to select one for querying or validation.
Lista los planes públicos sin requerir API key.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the fact that no API key is required, which is a meaningful auth-related behavior not present in annotations. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination, result format, or any rate limits, leaving some gaps. With annotations carrying the safety information, a 3 is appropriate.
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, compact sentence that starts with the action and the object. There is no filler or redundant information; every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a trivial parameterless list operation.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover safety, the description is complete for an agent to call it correctly. It states what the tool returns (public plans) and the key prerequisite (no API key required). Nothing essential is missing, and the sibling distinction is not critical given the different nature of the tools.
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, so there are no parameter semantics to elaborate on. The schema coverage is 100% because the schema is empty and additionalProperties is false. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information. This is sufficient.
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 clearly states the verb 'Lista' (lists) and the resource 'planes públicos' (public plans), making the purpose unambiguous. It is implicitly distinct from the sibling tool, which is about comparison, but the description does not explicitly name the alternative or differentiate itself. It's specific and clear enough to be understood on its own.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'veriko_get_public_plan_comparison'. The phrase 'sin requerir API key' is a prerequisite, not a usage condition. There is no mention of scenarios where one might prefer this tool over another, so an agent would have to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.