Verifies the email OTP code and returns a session token for wallet purchases.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The 6-digit OTP code entered by the user. | |
| Yes | The email address of the customer. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | No | ||
| isError | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "content": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "text": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "type",
+ "text"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "isError": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but do not explain the consequence of repeated calls or the session token's scope. The description adds that a session token is returned for wallet purchases, which is useful context beyond the structured data.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, inputs, and outcome without any 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 the tool has an output schema (which would describe the session token and any errors), a 2-parameter schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and outcome. It misses only explicit usage guidance relative to send_agent_otp.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema (code as 6-digit OTP, email as customer address). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
States a specific verb (Verifies), resource (email OTP code), and an outcome (returns a session token for wallet purchases). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling send_agent_otp, which sends rather than verifies.
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 this is used after receiving an OTP (presumably via send_agent_otp), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or prerequisites. The connection to send_agent_otp is implicit rather than spelled out.
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.