Create a Stripe-hosted checkout for a credit bundle without an API key. Returns a checkout URL and a secret one-time claim token. A human approves payment in Stripe; never expose or put the claim token in a URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bundle | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds context: human approval is required in Stripe, the token is one-time and secret, and warns about exposure. This goes beyond annotations.
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?
Three concise sentences covering purpose, returns, and security. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence essential.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what it does, the sensitive token, and the need for human approval. It lacks detail on post-approval flow (e.g., using claim_checkout) but is otherwise complete.
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 has 0% description coverage on the bundle parameter. The description mentions 'credit bundle' as context but does not expand on the meaning of the enum values (starter, standard, bulk). It provides minimal added value.
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 it creates a Stripe-hosted checkout for a credit bundle, specifying the outcome (checkout URL and claim token) and distinguishing itself from sibling tools like checkout_status and claim_checkout.
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?
Explicitly mentions the tool works without an API key, and gives critical security guidance to never expose the claim token in a URL. However, it does not directly compare to sibling tools or state when to use this vs. alternatives.
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: converting, parsing, rendering, and listing styles. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (convert_recipe, list_styles, parse_recipe, render_recipe) using snake_case.
4 tools is well-scoped for a recipe HTML conversion service, covering core operations without bloat or deficiency.
The set covers the full workflow: parsing prose, rendering graphs, a combined convenience call, and style exploration. No obvious gaps.