Generates a canonical hosted Stripe checkout link for a valid public offer_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Optional locale (e.g. en-US) | |
| offer_id | Yes | Public offer ID | |
| request_id | Yes | Unique client request ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate basic safety. The description adds a small behavioral detail: the link is 'canonical' and requires a 'valid' offer_id, suggesting validation and determinism. However, it does not disclose whether generating the link creates a persistent Stripe object, requires authentication, or has side effects beyond returning a URL.
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 entire description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('Generates a canonical hosted Stripe checkout link') and includes a necessary condition. No filler words or redundant details. Every word contributes meaning.
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 simple tool with three fully documented parameters, the description covers the basic purpose. However, the absence of an output schema means the description could have explained what the tool returns (e.g., a URL string), and it lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over prepare_purchase_intent. Given the low complexity, it is adequate but not complete.
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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (offer_id, request_id, locale), covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The description only restates the offer_id concept ('valid public offer_id') without adding new information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 tool's function: generating a canonical hosted Stripe checkout link for a valid public offer_id. The verb 'Generates' and resource 'checkout link' are specific, and the qualification 'for a valid public offer_id' adds precision. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool prepare_purchase_intent, which might serve a related but distinct purpose.
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 gives minimal usage context: it mentions the tool works 'for a valid public offer_id', implying that a valid offer is required. It does not state when to use this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or any exclusions. Given the sibling tool prepare_purchase_intent exists, explicit guidance on when to choose one over the other would be valuable.
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: get_offer vs list_offers vs recommend_offer target different granularities, and get_public_proof vs search_public_proof follow the same pattern. The only potential confusion is between create_checkout_link and prepare_purchase_intent, but their descriptions clarify different purchase mechanisms.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_offers, create_checkout_link, search_faqs). No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
10 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a platform focused on offers, events, FAQs, proofs, and purchases. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count feels neither sparse nor bloated.
The tool surface covers offer discovery, retrieval, recommendation, purchase initiation, events, FAQs, proofs, and system capabilities. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no get_event or get_faq), but core workflows are fully supported for an agent-facing public server.