prepare_plan_paymentPrepare an exact live Pro or Platinum quote using the default saved payment method. Display the complete quote, card brand, last four digits, and expiry when present, then ask an explicit yes/no question before calling confirmation. Preparation never confirms or charges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| priceId | Yes | ||
| planType | Yes | ||
| communityId | Yes | ||
| discountCode | No | ||
| referralCode | No | ||
| discountCodeDecision | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Explicitly states 'Preparation never confirms or charges,' which adds transparency. However, the destructiveHint annotation suggests potential destructiveness, creating a mild contradiction. No mention of auth or rate limits.
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 main purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.
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?
Covers the preparation flow well but lacks explanation of how the prepared quote is handled afterward (e.g., expiration). No output schema, but description is sufficient for a preparation step.
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 0% and the description does not explain parameters beyond mentioning plan types (PRO/PLATINUM). Fails to clarify the meaning or usage of priceId, discountCode, referralCode, etc.
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 prepares an exact live Pro or Platinum quote using the default payment method, distinct from confirmation. It uses specific verbs and resources, and explicitly contrasts with the sibling confirm_plan_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?
Describes the preparation flow including display of quote details and asking for explicit yes/no before confirmation. Implicitly contrasts with confirm_plan_payment, but does not explicitly list when not to use.
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.
Many tools are semantically identical, distinguished only by 'business' vs 'community' prefixes, and descriptions explicitly state they are interchangeable. This creates ambiguity for agent selection. Examples include add_business_admins/add_community_admins and get_business/get_community.
Tools generally follow a verb_noun pattern, but the inconsistent use of 'business' vs 'community' for the same entities breaks the pattern. While individual naming is clear, the overall set lacks uniformity.
With 423 tools, the server is massively over-scoped. The high count is driven by redundant 'business' and 'community' variants and many niche operations. A more focused surface would be far more manageable.
The tool set covers a broad range of features including CRUD operations for multiple product types, analytics, payments, messaging, and integrations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for some entity types), but overall domain coverage is strong.