get_cartRetrieve the current foodpanda cart details: items, quantities, prices, delivery and service fees, and total. If the cart is empty, it reports that clearly.
View the current in-memory cart contents including items, quantities, prices, delivery fee, service fee, and totals. Returns 'Cart is empty.' if no items have been added.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the empty-cart return behavior ('Cart is empty.') and lists the exact contents. It does not mention side effects, but as a read operation none are expected. This is sufficient for a simple 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?
Two sentences with no waste. The purpose and content are front-loaded, and the empty-case behavior is added as a separate, clear note. Every word earns its place.
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 parameterless, no-output-schema tool, this description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it returns and the special empty case. The sibling set is sufficiently distinct that no additional routing guidance is necessary.
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 the schema provides no semantics. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns, which is the only relevant information. Given 0 parameters, this is appropriately handled.
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 'View' and the resource 'current in-memory cart contents', enumerating the included fields (items, quantities, prices, delivery fee, service fee, totals). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_to_cart or place_order, which imply mutation.
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?
It clearly implies this is the read-only cart inspection tool, contrasting with siblings that modify or finalize orders. While it doesn't explicitly state 'use this instead of preview_order', the context is strong enough that an agent would know when to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.