Get a link to buy transcription credits. Payment happens through a secure checkout in the user's browser; it cannot be completed inside the chat. After buying, the credits are added to the email entered at checkout and can be used with prepare_upload / start_transcription.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The email the credits should be added to. | ||
| bundle | No | How many credits to buy: 1, 5, or 10 (default 1). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that the tool returns a link, payment is external, and credits are later usable. Adequately explains the asynchronous nature.
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 covering purpose and workflow with zero unnecessary words. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior. Could mention the format of the returned link, but not essential.
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 description adds value by clarifying the email's role for credit assignment. Bundle parameter is described in schema and context is provided.
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?
Clearly states the tool provides a link to buy transcription credits. Distinguishes from siblings by describing its role in the workflow (prepares credits for prepare_upload/start_transcription).
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?
Explicitly states payment happens externally and cannot be completed in chat, and that credits are added to the provided email. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but adequately guides appropriate usage.
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.
Each tool serves a clear, non-overlapping purpose: credit purchase, credit check, upload preparation, and transcription start. No ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (buy_credits, check_credits, prepare_upload, start_transcription) using underscores.
Four tools perfectly cover the core workflow (credit management + upload/transcript) without unnecessary extras.
The workflow is covered end-to-end, but there is no tool to poll transcription status or retrieve results (they are emailed). This minor gap could be addressed with a status tool.
