list_payment_methodsList the signed-in user's saved payment cards (brand, last 4, expiry, default). Use the returned publicId with create_one_click_checkout to pre-select a card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, consistent with the description's 'list' behavior. The description adds details on returned fields (brand, last 4, expiry, default) and scope (signed-in user). No contradictions.
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 sentences: first states purpose concisely, second provides actionable next step. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description explains return fields and links to sibling tool. For a simple list operation, this is complete. No missing context needed for correct invocation.
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 schema description coverage is 100% (no properties). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed, and it adds value on output semantics.
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 lists the signed-in user's saved payment cards, specifying returned fields (brand, last 4, expiry, default). Title 'List saved cards' aligns well. It distinguishes from sibling tool create_one_click_checkout by linking the returned publicId.
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 explains the tool returns publicId for use with create_one_click_checkout, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource, e.g., search vs search_hotels, get_booking vs get_my_booking. No overlapping functionality; descriptions clarify subtle differences.
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (add_trip_item, cancel_booking) or get_/list_ prefixes. One outlier ('fetch') breaks the pattern slightly, but overall naming is predictable.
18 tools cover the hotel booking domain comprehensively without being excessive. Each tool has a clear role in the workflow from search to booking to modification.
Covers all key lifecycle stages: search, details, rooms, pricing, checkout (standard and one-click), booking management (list, get, cancel, modify), payment methods, and trip saving. No obvious gaps.