Create an IMMUTABLE recurring-billing plan; send payers to result.mini_app_subscribe_url. See the subscriptions doc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Plan name shown to payers (≤64). | |
| asset | Yes | Asset code, e.g. USDT. | |
| amount | Yes | Decimal string in MAJOR units, e.g. "5" = 5 USDT. Never a float. Charged per period. | |
| period_days | Yes | Billing period in days. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It discloses the consequential immutability of the plan and specifies the required follow-up action (send payers to result.mini_app_subscribe_url). Annotations already signal non-readonly and non-destructive intent, and the description adds behavioral value beyond them without contradiction.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence conveys the core action. The follow-up instruction about mini_app_subscribe_url is essential, and the docs pointer is efficient. There is no fluff or repetition.
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?
The description covers the core action and the key follow-up field, but there is no output schema and it does not explain the full response shape, idempotency, or error behavior. It relies on an external doc reference for completeness, leaving gaps for an agent invoking the tool blind.
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 input schema documents all four parameters with 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to redefine them. It adds no extra parameter-level meaning such as defaults, dependencies, or formatting beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create an IMMUTABLE recurring-billing plan.' The 'IMMUTABLE' qualifier is a key distinguishing trait that separates this from createCheck/createInvoice and signals a durable, non-editable resource.
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 gives clear context for when to use it: when creating a recurring-billing subscription plan, and it even tells the caller to send payers to result.mini_app_subscribe_url. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of the top score.
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 resource and action: invoices, subscription plans, subscriptions, checks, transfers, connection status, and app info are cleanly separated. Even similarly named tools like transfer and transferBatch are clearly distinguished by single vs. batch behavior.
The overwhelming majority follow a clear camelCase verb_noun pattern, such as createInvoice, getChecks, and refundInvoice. Minor deviations exist with get_docs and connect_status using snake_case, and bare verbs like connect and transfer, but these do not seriously harm predictability.
At 24 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal compact range, but the scope is genuinely broad: connection onboarding, invoices, subscriptions, checks, transfers, balances, rates, app settings, and documentation. Most tools cover distinct needed operations for a merchant payments API.
The core lifecycles are well covered: create/list/delete/refund for invoices, create/list/archive for subscription plans, create/list/delete for checks, and single/batch transfers with listings. The main gap is a lack of singular get-by-id endpoints for individual resources, though list endpoints likely make this workable.