Get live $49/30d USDT (BEP-20 & TRC-20) Sponsored Spotlight checkout configuration and official merchant wallets.
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": "get_payment_instructions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add two useful behavioral facts beyond the name: the configuration is 'live' (real-time, not cached) and the returned wallets are 'official', implying they are authoritative and safe to pay. It omits that this is a read-only, side-effect-free call and says nothing about trust/verification concerns for wallet addresses.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the action verb comes first. It is slightly over-packed with stacked modifiers — price, duration, token, two networks and a product name in one phrase — which costs a little readability without wasting words.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it only sketches that ('checkout configuration and official merchant wallets') without shape, fields, or how the two networks appear in the response. Adequate to identify the tool, thin for actually consuming its result.
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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter meaning to add; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. However, the description leaves ambiguous whether the two networks (BEP-20 and TRC-20) are both returned or must be chosen elsewhere, which is relevant since there is no input to select one.
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 ('Get') and a concrete resource: checkout configuration and official merchant wallets. The qualifying string '$49/30d USDT (BEP-20 & TRC-20) Sponsored Spotlight' is dense with pricing, token and network jargon, but an agent can still tell this returns live payment details for a specific product, distinct from the directory/product siblings.
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?
Usage is only implied: the mention of 'checkout configuration' and 'merchant wallets' suggests this is called when a payment for the Sponsored Spotlight must be initiated. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no named alternative (e.g. submit_product) to route between.
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.