Option A: get a Stripe Checkout URL for a human to pay by card (tax added at checkout). Each new link stops earlier links for the same quote from working.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quote_id | Yes | Quote id (qt_...) returned by create_quote | |
| idempotency_key | No | Same key on a retry returns the first result instead of creating another |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / idempotency_keyAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "maxLength": 255,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "Same key on a retry returns the first result instead of creating another",
+ "title": "Idempotency Key"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description earns credit for explaining what that destruction actually is: 'Each new link stops earlier links for the same quote from working.' That is real behavioral detail an agent cannot infer from the flags alone. It still omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit behavior.
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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, and the invalidation warning placed immediately after. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the explicit link-invalidation disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents quote_id (qt_... from create_quote) and the idempotency_key retry semantics. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('get a Stripe Checkout URL') plus the audience (a human paying by card) and an outcome detail (tax added at checkout). The 'Option A' framing signals it is one of several payment paths, which separates it from the crypto path without naming it outright.
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?
'Option A' implies a counterpart option (likely pay_with_crypto) but never names or describes it, and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. The tax note is a small piece of context but not routing guidance.
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.