Fetch hard and soft spending rules, lucky purchase settings, and delivery status to verify purchase eligibility before a surprise buy.
Get hard + soft spending policies, allowLuckyPurchases, luckyPurchaseMaxCoins, and delivery readiness (complete + missing[] — no raw address). Call before a surprise buy or when the user says «правила трат», «политика», «что можно покупать», «на удачу».
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal that the call returns a composed view with delivery readiness and explicitly forbids raw address, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, requires no special auth, or has no side effects; the 'Get' verb implies safety but does not confirm it.
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 dense sentences, with the return contents in the first and usage triggers in the second. No filler or repetition; 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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent receives (policy fields and delivery readiness state) and when to call. It leaves minor ambiguity around the exact shape of 'hard + soft policies' and 'missing[]', but for a simple getter this is 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 takes zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% with an empty object. The description cannot add parameter-specific meaning beyond that, and no parameter guidance is needed. Baseline 4 applies.
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 specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('spending policies'), and enumerates exact fields returned (hard/soft policies, allowLuckyPurchases, luckyPurchaseMaxCoins, delivery readiness). It also explicitly excludes raw address, which distinguishes it from sibling get_delivery_address. This makes the tool's purpose immediately unambiguous.
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 gives concrete invocation triggers: before a surprise buy and when the user says specific Russian phrases like 'правила трат' or 'политика'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is clear enough to route an agent. Hence 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.