Stochastic Symposium

symposium_checkout

Get a Stripe checkout URL to buy credits (1 credit = $0.10; packs of 50/100/250). A human completes it; hand them the URL.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "symposium_checkout"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`api_key`	No	Your sk-symp-… key from symposium_register (or send it as an Authorization: Bearer header).
`credits`	No	Alternatively any exact amount ≥ 100.
`product`	No	Default credits_50 ($5).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 21, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / product / description
```
Previous value: -"Default credits_500 ($5)."New value: +"Default credits_50 ($5)."
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 20, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / product / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "credits_100",
-  "credits_500",
-  "credits_1000"
-]New value: +[
+  "credits_50",
+  "credits_100",
+  "credits_250"
+]

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the human-completion requirement, pricing (1 credit = $0.10), and default pack size, which are valuable. It does not explain URL validity/expiry, whether the purchase is automatic, or what happens to the balance afterward, so disclosure is partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key operational caveat. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, pricing, and the human hand-off. Minor gaps remain around return format specifics and post-purchase behavior, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds economic meaning by mapping credits to dollars (1 credit = $0.10) and naming the pack sizes (50/100/250) that correspond to the product enum. This is genuine value beyond the schema text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource (get a Stripe checkout URL) plus the intent (buy credits), which is clearly distinct from siblings like symposium_balance or symposium_register. It does not explicitly name or contrast with a sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'to buy credits,' and the sentence 'A human completes it; hand them the URL' usefully tells the agent not to attempt completion itself. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., balance check) and no when-not guidance.

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

All Stochastic Symposium tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?