checkout_linkGet the URL where the human opens their cart to review and pay. The agent never pays — checkout is always done by the person in the browser.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Cart page for the human to review and pay. | |
| note | No | ||
| items_in_cart | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by clarifying that the returned URL is for the human to complete payment, specifying the behavioral trait that checkout is handled by the browser, not the agent.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Get the URL'), and every sentence adds essential value—no wasted words.
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 no parameters, an output schema exists (covering return format), and the annotations are comprehensive, the description fully explains the tool's role in the workflow, including who performs checkout, leaving no critical gaps.
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 has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no extra parameter info because none exist, but it sufficiently explains the tool's purpose without needing to address parameters.
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 it retrieves a URL for human checkout, specifying the resource ('URL') and action ('Get'). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_to_cart or apply_promo, which handle cart item manipulation rather than checkout initiation.
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 explicitly notes that the agent never pays and checkout is done by the human, providing clear usage context. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, the context implies it's for finalizing the order when human interaction is needed, which is adequate.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct; slight overlap exists between cart_update and set_cart_quantity (both modify cart lines), and between remove_promo and cart_remove (different domains). Other groups (studio, designer) are well-separated.
Consistent use of verb_noun pattern for most tools, with noun prefixes (designer_, studio_) grouping related tools. No mixed conventions or obscure abbreviations.
31 tools is high for a single server, covering shopping, studio, and designer domains. Some tools like cart_update and set_cart_quantity seem redundant, pushing count beyond optimal.
Core workflows (search, cart, checkout, generation, designer submission) are covered. Minor gaps: no edit/delete for designs or orders, and no tool to manage saved addresses beyond viewing.