Check the payment status of a job posting. Use the session_id returned from post_job_public or create_company_job with extras. No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Stripe checkout session ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'No authentication required' and the operation itself (check), which implies read-only but isn't explicit. It doesn't state side effects, return format, or whether it's idempotent. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by input provenance and auth requirement. No fluff.
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 single-parameter check with no output schema, this is fairly complete. It tells the agent what to do, what to pass, and the auth context. It could mention what the response contains, but that's implied by the operation name.
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 schema already describes session_id as 'Stripe checkout session ID' (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying the source of the session_id (returned from post_job_public or create_company_job with extras), which helps the agent obtain the correct value. That goes beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Clearly states the verb and resource: 'Check the payment status of a job posting.' It also tells the agent where to get the session_id (from post_job_public or create_company_job with extras), which further clarifies the operation. No sibling tool does this, so it's distinct.
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?
Gives explicit context on when to use: you need a session_id from post_job_public or create_company_job with extras, and no authentication is required. While it doesn't name alternatives, there are no payment-status sibling tools, so the guidance is sufficient.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: job posting vs job browsing vs job management vs company management vs talent search vs profile editing vs messaging vs application tracking. Even similar tools like get_companies and search_companies are clearly differentiated by purpose and parameters. Overlapping concepts (e.g., post_job_public vs create_company_job) have explicit differences in authentication and cost.
All tools use snake_case and follow a verb-first pattern (add_, get_, create_, update_, delete_, search_, list_, send_, etc.). There are minor deviations like 'show_company_job' instead of 'get_company_job' and 'mark_message_read' which is a verb+noun+adjective, but the overall style is consistent and predictable across the 41 tools.
With 41 tools, this is well into the 'too many' range (25+). While the breadth reflects a comprehensive jobs platform, the number is excessive for an agent to efficiently navigate. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., profile management could merge add_education/add_experience/update_profile, or company perks could be combined with profile updates). The tool count detracts from usability.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: job posting (create, update, delete, list), job discovery (browse, search, related), company management (profile, perks, tech stack), talent search and messaging, application tracking (save, get, remove, update status), and data analytics (salary, statistics). Minor gaps exist—no delete/update for education or experience, no explicit 'close job' action—but these are edge cases and agents can work around them.