Describe how to unlock Pro or purchase agent SKUs via Stripe MPP. Optional sku (default pro_prepaid_30d). Returns POST URL and amount; agent must call HTTP with MPP Payment credential.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool only returns a POST URL and amount rather than completing payment itself, and that the agent must perform the HTTP call. However, it does not state whether invoking this tool creates a charge, whether it is reversible, or what errors/idempotency behavior to expect, which is significant for a payment-related action.
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 dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the purpose and then specifying the return value and required next action. It loses one point because 'Describe how to' is an awkward meta-verb that slightly obscures the tool's actual behavior.
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 payment-related tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is serviceable but incomplete. It covers the return contract (POST URL and amount), the required follow-up HTTP call, and the default SKU, but omits response structure, currency, side-effect/charge semantics, and error handling. Since no sibling tool fills this role, the description is the agent's only guide.
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 single parameter `sku` has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add optionality and the default value `pro_prepaid_30d`, but it does not explain the meaning or appropriate choice among the enum values, such as when to pick a top-up SKU over a prepaid plan. The enum itself narrows the choices but does not convey semantic intent.
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 names a specific resource (Pro/agent SKUs), mechanism (Stripe MPP), and observable output (POST URL and amount). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, but the phrase 'Describe how to' makes it read more like instructions than an action the tool performs, which costs a point.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. However, the tool is the only payment/billing-related tool among siblings, so the intended context is implied. It does convey a key follow-up requirement: the agent must call the returned URL via HTTP with the MPP Payment credential.
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.
Most tools are named as resource+action and target distinct surfaces (inbox, kvp, files, billing), so an agent can generally select the right tool. A few pairs like budget_get vs usage_get and inbox_message_get vs inbox_message_raw have adjacent purposes, but their descriptions mostly clear up the boundary.
The predominant convention is snake_case noun_verb, e.g. kvp_get, inbox_create, files_list. Minor deviations like inspect_storage (verb-noun) and bare noun names such as billing_portal and files_types slightly break the pattern.
With 35 tools, the server is well above the 25+ threshold and bundles many subdomains—billing, KVP, inbox, RAG, files, keys, support—into one surface. It would be more coherent as separate servers or with a significantly trimmed inbox tool set.
Core workflows are mostly covered: inbox lifecycle, webhooks, KVP CRUD, billing, and usage are solid. However file upload has no corresponding delete/remove tool, and keys have create but no list/revoke, leaving noticeable lifecycle gaps.