generate_payment_route_snippetGenerates a ready-to-use backend endpoint (e.g., /api/pay/create) that creates a Payram payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| framework | Yes | Web framework for the payment route handler (Express.js or Next.js) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| snippet | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool 'generates a ready-to-use backend endpoint' without clarifying whether it returns code, writes files, or requires existing setup. No mention of side effects, output format, or limitations.
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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes a concrete example, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and explicit behavioral detail, which would be needed for fully confident tool selection alongside many similar siblings.
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 provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter 'framework', including a description and enum values. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 tool generates a backend endpoint for Payram payments with a concrete example path. It uses a specific verb ('generates') and distinct resource ('backend endpoint'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling snippet tools like HTTP or SDK snippets.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several similar sibling tools (e.g., snippet_express_payment_route, generate_payment_http_snippet) but the description doesn't indicate selection criteria or when to prefer this over those.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.