ozow_environmentReports the connected Ozow environment, whether real money can move, and configured limits so you can confirm staging or production before any payment.
Report which Ozow environment this server is connected to, whether it can move real money, and the configured limits. Call this first - and always before any payment - so you know whether you are in staging or production.
| 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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it discloses that the response indicates whether real money can move and what limits are configured, which is the key risk signal an agent needs. It stops short of describing the exact response shape, but that is a minor 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the imperative 'Call this first', zero filler. Every clause carries either purpose or usage instruction.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does: environment name, real-money flag, and limits. It is slightly underspecified about the exact fields/format of the limits, but the agent has enough to decide to call it and interpret the result.
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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument introspection call.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Report which Ozow environment this server is connected to') plus the scope of what it reveals (real-money capability, configured limits). An agent can immediately distinguish it from ozow_create_payment or ozow_verify_credentials.
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?
Explicit sequencing guidance: 'Call this first - and always before any payment.' It names the precondition (before payments) and the decision it supports (staging vs production), leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.