Papaya Pay Any Bill (US)

by com.papayapay.consumer-production.mcp-agent

Fetch Bill Status

fetch_bill_status

Read-only

Check the payment status of a submitted bill. Read value for the current status. statusEvaluatedDescription is only present when the payment was declined or failed, and then explains why - relay that reason to the user. It is omitted for every other status, so treat its presence as a decline/failure.

Args:
    bill_status_input: the bill identifier and auth token

Returns:
    dictionary with keys value, statusDescription, and - only for declined/failed
    bills - statusEvaluatedDescription explaining why the payment did not go through

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bill_status_input`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains that 'statusEvaluatedDescription' is only present for declined/failed payments and should be treated as a reason for failure. This goes beyond the annotation's readonly flag by disclosing conditional output behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured with an opening statement, a behavioral note, and clear Args/Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary text, though the conditional explanation could be more concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple fetch tool, the description adequately covers the main behavior and conditional output. However, it lacks explicit mention of default status values or pagination, and the input parameter is not fully unpacked. Given the presence of an output schema (implied by Returns description), this is mostly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only vaguely mentions 'bill_status_input: the bill identifier and auth token' without detailing the nested fields or their formats. The schema itself provides descriptions for 'bill_id' and 'auth_token', but the description adds minimal value beyond aggregation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check the payment status of a submitted bill.' This specifies a concrete action (check) on a specific resource (payment status of a bill). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze_bill' or 'confirm_payment_intent' by focusing solely on status retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_bill' or 'check_payment_method'. It implies usage after bill submission but gives no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Papaya Pay Any Bill (US) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct step in the bill payment lifecycle: analyze creates the bill, check_payment_method verifies card setup, confirm_payment_intent submits payment, fetch_bill_status tracks payment status, request_bill_cancellation stops a payment, and get_new_auth_token handles auth refresh. No two tools overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate the check status vs. check card method tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All six tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: analyze_bill, check_payment_method, confirm_payment_intent, fetch_bill_status, get_new_auth_token, request_bill_cancellation. Verbs are descriptive and distinct, with no mixed conventions or ambiguous short names.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a bill payment domain: two core steps (analyze and confirm), one optional verification (card check), one status query, one cancellation, and one auth helper. The count feels neither sparse nor bloated, and each tool contributes to the core workflow.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of paying a bill: create, set payment method, confirm payment, check status, and cancel if needed. Auth token refresh covers authorization failures, and re-running analyze_bill handles corrections. No obvious gaps that would cause agent failures in the intended use case.

Resources

Need Help?