get_checkout_linkReturns the URL where a human can view the preview and pay to unlock the full contract for a draft created with start_contract_draft. Share this link with your user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preview_id | Yes | The preview_id returned by start_contract_draft |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a URL for a human to preview and pay, indicating a read-only action without side effects on the contract itself. It does not detail authorization requirements or rate limits, but the simple nature of the operation and the clear wording make the behavior sufficiently transparent.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and an actionable instruction in the second. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or 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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns (a URL), why it exists (for payment/unlocking), and how to use it (share with the user). The context around the contract workflow is sufficient.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description ('The preview_id returned by start_contract_draft'). The tool description reinforces this linkage but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.
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 primary function: 'Returns the URL where a human can view the preview and pay to unlock the full contract.' This uses a specific verb ('returns') and a resource ('URL') and references the related workflow (start_contract_draft), making it distinct from sibling tools that analyze contracts or check status.
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 when to use this tool: after a draft has been created via start_contract_draft, and it instructs to 'Share this link with your user.' This provides clear context and an intended sequence, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: analyzing existing contracts, checking non-compete enforceability, managing draft lifecycle (questions, start, status, checkout), listing types, and getting jurisdiction requirements. No two tools have overlapping functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., analyze_contract, get_checkout_link, list_contract_types), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 8 tools covering contract analysis, drafting, and legal requirements, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose. Each tool serves a necessary function without bloat or deficiency.
The tool set covers listing, intake, drafting, status checking, payment, analysis, and legal requirements. However, after payment there is no tool to retrieve the full contract text programmatically; users must visit a URL, which is a minor gap.