List local payment history (MPP purchases and logged Stripe events). Optional includeStripe merges unlogged Stripe charges/invoices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| includeStripe | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a list/read operation and reveals meaningful merging behavior for includeStripe. It does not mention pagination behavior, authorization requirements, or whether any side effects occur, leaving some gaps.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then adds the optional behavior in a compact way. Every part contributes value.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important gaps: return shape, cursor semantics, pagination defaults, authentication requirements, and what 'local' precisely means. The basic purpose is clear, but the definition is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke it in varied scenarios.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains includeStripe's purpose ('merges unlogged Stripe charges/invoices') but provides no meaningful semantics for 'limit' or 'cursor', such as default values, pagination format, or constraints. This is insufficient given the complete lack of schema-level descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('local payment history'), then further specifies the content: MPP purchases and logged Stripe events. This clearly distinguishes it from billing-related siblings like billing_machine_pay and billing_portal, which imply different actions.
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 implies when to use the tool: for listing local payment history, with includeStripe being an optional switch to merge unlogged Stripe charges/invoices. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like billing_portal or billing_machine_pay.
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.