Get ways to pay for an instance's plan: card/subscription buy links, crypto payment info, and Telegram Stars info (crypto and Stars are in beta testing), plus the instance's current term.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Instance (agent) id, as returned by create_instance or list_instances. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden: 'Get' indicates a read-only fetch, and the description enumerates what is returned, including the beta status of crypto and Stars. It doesn't state permissions or rate limits, but the read-only nature is well conveyed.
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?
One dense sentence front-loads the main purpose and appends a compact list of return categories plus a beta caveat. Every element earns its place, and there is no filler.
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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, all payment option categories, the beta caveat, and the extra term field. It could be more explicit about response shape, but that is not necessary for correct invocation.
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 covers the sole id parameter at 100% and explains that it's an instance/agent id. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond connecting the id to 'an instance's plan', which is enough to hit the baseline.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get ways to pay for an instance's plan', then lists the exact contents (card/subscription links, crypto, Telegram Stars, term). This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from instance lifecycle/health siblings.
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 wording implies the tool should be used when the agent needs payment options or billing info for an instance, but it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives like instance_term. The context is clear enough to avoid misuse, just not fully stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.