ifthenpay Payments MCP

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

No annotations; description only says it creates a payment and returns a URL. Lacks details on side effects (e.g., immediate charge or reservation), idempotency, error scenarios, or permissions needed.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Could add more detail without losing conciseness.

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 100% schema coverage, description does not explain payment flow outcomes, error handling, or the structure of the returned URL. Incomplete for a payment creation tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.

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 already describes all 8 parameters thoroughly (100% coverage). Description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema provides, hence baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states it creates a Cofidis Pay instalment payment and returns a payment URL. Differentiates from sibling tools via name and 'instalment' context, but could explicitly contrast with other payment creation tools.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like creditcard_create_payment or pinpay_create_payment. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having a Cofidis key) or expected flow.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic flow (creating a session and redirecting to a hosted checkout) but lacks details on idempotency, authentication, rate limits, or side effects beyond mutation.

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 long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous words. Every word adds value.

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 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but could include more, such as the structure of the response (e.g., that it returns a payment URL) or how to handle the URL. The sibling tools are similar, so additional detail would aid differentiation.

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% with each parameter already described. The description does not add meaningful context beyond the schema, though it groups the redirect URLs implicitly. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the 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 the tool creates a credit/debit card payment session and returns a payment URL. The name and description distinguish it from sibling tools like mbway_request_payment or multibanco_create_reference, as it's specifically for credit/debit cards.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is implied by the tool's name and description, but no direct guidance is given.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the possible return statuses (pending, paid, declined, timeout, cancelled), which gives good behavioral insight. It does not mention idempotency or side effects, but 'checks status' implies a read-only operation.

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, no wasted words. The most important information (what it does and what it returns) is front-loaded.

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 status check tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and return values adequately. It could mention polling behavior or that it only works for pending requests, but it is sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that request_id comes from mbway_request_payment, linking to a sibling tool and providing usage context beyond the schema.

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 checks the status of a previously requested MB WAY payment, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling mbway_request_payment by implying it is the follow-up step.

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 indicates it is for previously requested payments, implying use after mbway_request_payment. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context from sibling names is clear enough.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the customer approves in the MB WAY app, but lacks details on timeout, failure modes, idempotency, or authorization requirements, leaving significant gaps.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the primary action and immediately providing a usage guideline. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It only states that it sends a request and references checking status, but does not mention return values or success indicators. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no new information beyond the schema, such as the phone number format and amount in EUR, but does not enhance understanding further. 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 clearly states that the tool sends an MB WAY payment request to the customer's mobile phone, using specific verbs and resource. It also differentiates from the sibling tool mbway_check_status by indicating its distinct role in the payment flow.

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 explicitly mentions to use mbway_check_status to check the result, providing a clear when-not-to-use scenario. However, it does not offer guidance on when to choose MB WAY over other payment methods like creditcard_create_payment.

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?

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. It lacks disclosure of important behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, default expiry (expiry_days optional but behavior unspecified), and what happens on duplicate order_id. The description only states the basic creation action.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose with no unnecessary words. Every part 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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose but misses behavioral details like idempotency, error scenarios, and response format. It is adequate for basic selection but incomplete for full reliance.

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 100%, with each parameter having a description in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning or usage guidance beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 clearly identifies the verb ('Creates'), resource ('Multibanco payment reference'), and outcome ('customer can use to pay at any ATM or via online banking in Portugal'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'creditcard_create_payment' and 'payshop_create_reference' by specifying the Multibanco payment method.

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 usage for Portuguese ATM/online banking payments but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like Mbway or creditcard. No when-not conditions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the limit of 1000 most recent payments when no filters are applied, which is key behavioral info. However, it does not mention other traits like pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only list tool, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with purpose. No extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, so description should clarify return structure. It mentions 'returns up to 1000 most recent payments' but does not specify fields or format. For a list tool with 9 parameters, this is a notable omission.

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 baseline is 3. The description summarizes filter categories (payment method, date range, order ID, reference, request ID) but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 completed payments, specifies filters, and distinguishes from sibling creation/status tools. The verb 'Lists' and resource 'completed payments' are specific and 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 explains when to use (to list completed payments) and mentions filtering options. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling tools cover creation and status checks, so no direct alternative for listing exists.

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?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, or error conditions. For a creation tool, details about uniqueness of references, expiry handling, or lifecycle are missing.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain expected return values, error behavior, or practical usage notes, leaving significant gaps for a payment tool.

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 input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action (creates), resource (Payshop payment reference), and context (payment at Payshop agent or CTT in Portugal), distinguishing it from sibling tools like multibanco_create_reference.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for Payshop-specific payments). No mention of prerequisites or conditions under which it should be avoided.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. While it correctly indicates the tool creates a payment (non-destructive), it lacks details on authorization requirements, idempotency, rate limits, or whether the payment creation could trigger side effects beyond generating a URL.

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 at two sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action and key outputs. Slightly more structure could improve readability, but it remains clear and to the point.

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 no output schema, the description minimally states what is returned (URL and PIN). However, it does not explain the response format or any additional fields that might be present. For a tool with 14 parameters, the description is somewhat sparse.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds value by summarizing the key outputs (URL and PIN), but does not provide additional insight beyond the schema for individual 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 it creates a Pay by Link / PINPAY payment, returns a shareable URL and PIN code, and lists supported payment methods. The name and description together make it distinct from sibling tools like cofidis_create_payment or pix_create_payment.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling payment creation tools. It does not mention contexts for choosing PINPAY over specific payment method tools.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adequately states that the tool creates a payment and returns URL and QR code, and notes the CPF requirement. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it charges the customer immediately), error conditions, or idempotency behavior, which are important for a payment tool.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action and outputs. The second sentence adds a critical requirement. While effective, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating preconditions).

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 13 parameters (8 required) and no output schema, the description covers the key output (URL and QR code) and a critical precondition (CPF). It also implies the use case (Brazilian customers). However, it does not explain the redirect_url behavior or how to check payment status, though sibling tools like payments_list may cover that.

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 the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what is in the schema, except reinforcing the CPF requirement. Baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly exceed that.

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 ('Creates a PIX payment'), target resource ('for Brazilian customers'), and outputs ('Returns a payment URL and a QR code value'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the payment method and customer geography.

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 explicitly states a precondition ('Customer must have a CPF number'), which helps the agent know when the tool is applicable. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like creditcard_create_payment or mbway_request_payment, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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