rendben_get_payment_statusRead payer-safe payment status and receipt data using the opaque payment capability. This never returns the customer email, merchant API key or any wallet secret.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paymentIntentId | Yes | Opaque pi_ payment intent ID. | |
| payerAccessToken | Yes | Short-lived rpa_v1_ payer capability. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, signaling a safe read operation. The description adds specific behavioral assurance: 'This never returns the customer email, merchant API key or any wallet secret.' This is valuable extra context about data privacy, justifying a score above baseline.
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, front-loaded with purpose and followed by a critical safety disclosure. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and its data safety properties. It mentions 'receipt data' as a return element, which is helpful despite no formal output schema. The openWorldHint annotation suggests flexibility in return structure, so completeness is reasonable.
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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are well-described in the schema (e.g., 'Opaque pi_ payment intent ID.'). The description mentions 'opaque payment capability' but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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's purpose: 'Read payer-safe payment status and receipt data using the opaque payment capability.' It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('payment status and receipt data'), and the sibling tools (e.g., rendben_get_subscription_status, rendben_prepare_*) are clearly different in scope, so the tool is well-distinguished.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The user must infer from the name and context that it is for checking payment status, but explicit instructions are missing.
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 targets a distinct action: creating payment intents, querying payment/subscription status, inspecting checkouts, and preparing payments. No two tools appear to overlap in purpose.
All tools consistently follow the `rendben_verb_noun` pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_payment_intent, inspect_checkout). There are no deviations or mixed conventions.
With 6 tools covering payment intent creation, status checks, checkout inspection, and payment preparation, the count is well-scoped for a focused payment server without being excessive or sparse.
The tool set covers core actions (create, check, prepare) but notably lacks tooling for signing/submitting transactions or managing refunds/cancellations. The preparation tools explicitly leave signing to the user, creating a workflow gap for an autonomous agent.