Read a TgPay Merchant API integration doc. START HERE before integrating: topics quickstart, invoices, subscriptions, transfers-checks, webhooks, errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | quickstart | invoices | subscriptions | transfers-checks | webhooks | errors |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' verb is consistent with a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds topic context but no deeper behavioral detail such as response format, error behavior, or auth requirements; annotations carry the safety burden adequately.
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 short sentences with no waste. The primary purpose and the 'START HERE' guidance are front-loaded, and the topic list is compact and useful.
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 single-parameter read operation, the description is nearly complete: it states what the tool does, when to use it, and the valid values. It does not describe the return format, but for a documentation retrieval tool that is minor and largely inferable from 'Read a ... doc'.
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%, so the schema already documents the single required 'topic' parameter and its allowed values. The description's list of topics is helpful but largely repeats the schema, adding no significant new meaning beyond what the agent can already see.
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?
States a specific action ('Read') and resource ('TgPay Merchant API integration doc'), then enumerates the exact topics available. The tool is immediately distinguishable from the operational sibling tools, which perform API actions rather than retrieving documentation.
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 ('START HERE before integrating'), which is a strong usage signal. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the 'start here' instruction effectively orients the agent before it touches the operational sibling tools.
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.