Execute payment for a guest order (preprod only). Requires your customerKey and a pending payment session. Triggers A→B→A round-trip settlement on Cardano preprod. Subject to monthly auto-settle allowance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | Order ID (e.g. "BB-123") | |
| customer_key | Yes | Your customer key (from register_customer) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by revealing the preprod-only scope, the A→B→A round-trip settlement on Cardano preprod, and the monthly auto-settle allowance. It does not mention irreversibility or failure modes, but the core side effects are disclosed.
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 sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what is required, and what side effect it triggers. The key action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.
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 payment tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers preconditions and settlement behavior but omits what a successful call returns, how the agent should verify success via check_payment_status, and what failure or allowance exhaustion looks like. It is usable but not fully 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents both order_id and customer_key. The description adds no new parameter semantics and even uses 'customerKey' rather than the schema's customer_key, but this is a minor naming mismatch rather than a substantive gap.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute payment for a guest order'. It adds scope ('preprod only') and a clear precondition ('pending payment session'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_payment or check_payment_status without ambiguity.
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?
It states important context: preprod only, requires a customer key, needs a pending payment session, and is subject to a monthly allowance. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of create_payment or what to do after execution, such as checking payment status.
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 clear role in the customer, ordering, payment, or verification flow. The only potential confusions (get_catalog vs search_fish, get_catch_reports vs verify_catch) are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern using verbs like get, create, place, verify, check, and ask. Brand-specific tools like ask_gyotak and contact_gyotak still fit the same convention.
18 tools is slightly on the heavy side for a single server, but the scope spans sales, payments, customer management, and blockchain traceability, so most tools have distinct jobs. It is above the ideal range but not bloated.
The core commerce loop (register, order, pay, confirm) and traceability verification are covered well. Missing order cancellation, guest order status retrieval, or customer profile editing are minor gaps that agents can usually work around.