revenue-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Checks whether' aligns with that read-only profile — no contradiction. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing the operational criterion: the check is scoped to a 'verified delivery file bound to this server,' which clarifies the exact state being probed. It doesn't describe return shape, but for a safety-covered read operation the added criterion is meaningful context.

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 with zero filler. Every element — the verb, the resource, and the verification criterion — earns its place, and the description reads naturally with no redundant phrasing.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with safety annotations, the core check is stated, but the return value is never described: an agent doesn't know whether it receives a boolean, a status string, or a richer object. With no output schema present, the description should hint at the result shape. The missing return semantics and implicit parameter identity are the main gaps.

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 bears the burden. It partially compensates by naming the resource type (Stripe offer), making it inferable that the single 'id' parameter is the offer identifier, but it never explicitly states what id refers to, its format, or provenance. Since there is only one simple string parameter and the resource is named, this is adequate but not thorough — a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (checks whether) with a clear resource (Stripe offer) and an outcome criterion (verified delivery file bound to this server). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_stripe_checkout_link and get_request_credit_links, since none of those reference delivery-file verification. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, which prevents a 5, but the resource+criterion combination makes its purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., that an offer must already exist), exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling like list_stripe_offers or get_stripe_checkout_link. The title 'Check fulfillment readiness' implies a follow-up-after-purchase context, but this is left to inference rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds a minor detail ('live') about the data freshness. However, it does not disclose any additional behavior, side effects, or limitations beyond what the annotations already indicate.

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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose without unnecessary filler. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies what is returned and the context, though it could be slightly more explicit about the structure of the payment links or their intended use.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for high schema coverage 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 action (returns), the resource (Stripe Payment Links), and the specific context (prepaidKey request credits). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_stripe_checkout_link.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, such as get_stripe_checkout_link or list_stripe_offers. There is no mention of conditions or scenarios that would make this tool the preferred choice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee: it never fabricates a checkout URL, ensuring accuracy. This goes beyond the annotations, which is meaningful for an agent relying on exact 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a crucial reliability constraint. Every word earns its place; it's concise and well-structured.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It states what it returns (the exact link) and the precondition (known offer). It doesn't explain error behavior (e.g., what happens if the offer doesn't exist), but that's a minor gap given the simplicity and the read-only nature.

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 implies that 'id' is the identifier for a known CrossingKey offer, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it doesn't explicitly specify the exact nature of the id (e.g., internal offer ID vs. Stripe object ID) or its format, leaving some ambiguity. A more explicit mapping would be stronger.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a precise resource ('Stripe Payment Link'), and a clear condition ('for a known CrossingKey offer'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_stripe_offers (which lists offers) and get_request_credit_links (other link types). The 'Never invents a checkout URL' reinforces the exactness, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 the tool is used when you already have a known offer ID, and the 'Never invents' warning cautions against guessing URLs. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., 'use list_stripe_offers to find offers'). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: that the list is empty until services are approved after a safe-file scan. This explains the state and the gating mechanism, which annotations don't provide.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is stated first, followed by the crucial state condition. Everything earns its place.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough. It tells what the tool lists, under what condition, and when it is empty. An agent can decide to call it without additional missing information. Slightly more detail about return structure could be added, but it's not necessary given the simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters, there is nothing to explain. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is appropriate. Baseline of 4 for no parameters is correct.

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 'Lists' and a specific resource 'request services' with a clear condition ('approved after the safe-file scan'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_stripe_offers or get_fulfillment_status, which handle different resources or purposes.

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 this tool: when you need request services that have been approved. It states the list is empty until services are explicitly approved, giving clear context about the data state. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that digital offers report whether the exact fulfillment file is verified, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any other side effects or output specifics, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately adds a relevant detail about digital offers. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list tool.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and mentions the key verification flag for digital offers. It does not specify the full output structure (e.g., fields like name, price), but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers them. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no requirement to describe parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('known CrossingKey Stripe Payment Links'), and the added clause about digital offers distinguishes it from the sibling get_stripe_checkout_link (singular). It unambiguously conveys this tool lists all offers.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions, leaving the agent to infer that this is for listing all offers rather than getting a single link.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses the credit cost on success and the release on failure, which are behavioral traits not captured in the annotations. This provides useful transparency about side effects and resource consumption.

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 concise, using only two sentences without unnecessary verbiage. However, the structure is somewhat disjointed, mixing payment details with the core function, but overall it is efficient.

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?

The description is incomplete for effective agent use. It lacks details on the validation logic, expected input format, possible outputs (no output schema), and error conditions. Critical context is missing.

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?

Neither the schema nor the description explains the meaning or expected format of 'raw_intake' or 'idempotency_key'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'Paid bounded intake validation' is vague and does not clearly state what the tool actually does or what 'intake' refers to. It focuses more on the payment model than on the validation functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the listed sibling tools. It does not mention any specific use case or selection criteria, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.