Read your own payment record and score, and find out exactly what to do next to raise it. Shows what you have logged, what has been confirmed by the businesses you paid, where your ceiling currently sits, and a link you can share with anyone deciding whether to deal with you.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Read' strongly implies a non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. It also doesn't clarify whether the 'next steps' are suggestions only. This is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second expands on the output details. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool, making it highly 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, what data it reveals, and even a use case (sharing the link). Nothing essential for an agent to decide to call it 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?
With zero parameters, the schema is empty and the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the tool's output and purpose, compensating for the lack of any parameter information. It clearly describes what the user will see, which is more than a generic placeholder.
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 tool reads your own payment record and score, with a specific verb and resource. It goes beyond a simple definition by listing what it shows (logged entries, confirmations, ceiling, shareable link), distinguishing it from generic payment tools. Though it doesn't name a sibling, the scope ('your own') and purpose ('raise it') are 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?
The description implies when to use it: when you want to view your personal payment record and get actionable advice. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like payment_record or payments_how_it_works, but the self-referential language ('your own', 'share with anyone deciding whether to deal with you') gives clear context. No exclusions are stated, but the use case is evident.
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.