wata_wallet_autosettlement_getRetrieve the current wallet auto-settlement rules to know how revenue is automatically paid out and verify your withdrawal settings.
Текущие правила автоматического вывода выручки.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns current rules, implicitly indicating a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, has no side effects, or what the response contains. It also does not mention auth requirements or any edge cases. For a tool with zero annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 short sentence with no redundant words. It is efficiently front-loaded but lacks a verb, which slightly reduces clarity. Still, it is concise and to the point for a simple getter.
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's simplicity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but does not explicitly state the return format, authentication, or any caveats. It clearly indicates the resource (automatic withdrawal rules) but leaves the response structure to inference. For a simple GET, this is borderline sufficient.
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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.
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 'Current rules for automatic withdrawal of revenue' clearly indicates this tool retrieves the current autosettlement settings. It uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, but the tool name includes 'get', and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like wata_wallet_autosettlement_initiate and confirm, which are actions. The resource and its scope are specific.
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 alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or mention that this is a read-only counterpart to initiate/confirm. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.