Get a Stripe checkout link for more credits. Give the link to the human; they pay on Stripe and the credits land in about a minute. Nothing is charged by this call. Read the balance on get_account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| credits | No | Or a custom amount, 50 to 5000, at $0.20 each. | |
| pack_id | No | small (50 credits, $9.99), medium (100, $20) or large (300, $50). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the call does not charge the user (only generates a link) and that credits are delivered in about a minute. This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior, adding valuable timing and side-effect information.
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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the main purpose and then explain the process. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, avoiding 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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), and the description covers the essential flow: obtaining a link, human payment, credit delivery, and that no charge occurs. For a tool of this complexity, the description is complete and leaves no critical ambiguity for an agent.
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 input schema fully describes both parameters (credits and pack_id) with their ranges and pricing, so the description adds no new parameter details. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 'Get' and the resource 'a Stripe checkout link for more credits', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling tools by noting 'Read the balance on get_account', which clarifies that this tool is for purchasing, not checking balances.
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 explains the workflow: give the link to the human, they pay on Stripe, and credits arrive in about a minute. It also clarifies that nothing is charged by this call, which is a crucial usage constraint. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the reference to get_account provides context for related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
