Papaya Pay Any Bill (USA)

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that statusEvaluatedDescription is only present for declined or failed bills, and instructs the agent to relay that reason to the user. It also specifies the return dictionary keys, including the optional presence of statusEvaluatedDescription. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 well-structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, making it easy to scan. Every sentence provides essential information—purpose, conditional behavior, and return structure—without fluff. It is slightly longer than necessary but remains focused.

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?

With an output schema present, the description still usefully explains the return object and the conditional presence of statusEvaluatedDescription. It covers the core functionality and a key edge case (declined/failed). It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites beyond 'submitted bill,' but the overall picture is complete for a read-only status check.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description calls bill_status_input 'the bill identifier and auth token,' which is a minimal summary. The schema provides detailed descriptions, patterns, and source context for bill_id and auth_token, but schema description coverage is 0% at the top level. The description adds little additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so it just meets the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the payment status of a submitted bill.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like check_payment_method (which checks available methods) and confirm_payment_intent (which confirms a payment), by focusing on fetching the status of an already-submitted bill.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies clear usage context: use this tool after a bill has been submitted to obtain its payment status. It also provides guidance on how to interpret and relay the statusEvaluatedDescription for declined/failed bills. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.

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 (USA) 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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct role in the payment workflow: analyzing/creating a bill, checking card status, confirming payment, fetching payment status, refreshing auth tokens, and cancelling a bill. There is no meaningful overlap between these operations.

Naming Consistency5/5

All six tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (analyze_bill, check_payment_method, confirm_payment_intent, fetch_bill_status, get_new_auth_token, request_bill_cancellation). The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a bill payment server, covering the full lifecycle without unnecessary redundancy or overwhelming complexity. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the workflow.

Completeness5/5

The tools cover the complete bill payment lifecycle: creating/analyzing a bill, verifying payment method, confirming payment, checking status, cancelling, and handling auth token refresh. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?