View current payment rails, networks, assets, policy caps, and recipient allowlist to verify which USDC transactions are permitted.
Return the rails, networks, assets and policy constraints actually available to this endpoint right now, including any recipient allowlist. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the call is read-only and that results reflect the current live state of the endpoint. It does not discuss authentication requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool the safety profile is reasonably conveyed.
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, front-loaded sentence that names the returned resources and adds the key qualifiers 'actually available to this endpoint right now' and 'Read-only.' Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
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 simplicity of a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies what is returned and the dynamic nature of the result. It could go slightly further by hinting at the response shape or typical use case, but nothing essential is missing for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
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 an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses on what the response reveals rather than on inputs, which is the correct division of labor for a no-argument endpoint.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resources: rails, networks, assets, and policy constraints. It also scopes the result to what is 'actually available to this endpoint right now,' which clearly distinguishes this capability-discovery tool from the payment-focused siblings.
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 makes the tool's purpose clear but does not explicitly state when to call it versus alternatives, such as using it before create_payment to discover available rails. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out, so no exclusions or alternative-routing guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.