Retrieve an agent-to-agent invoice by ID. Returns status (OPEN/PAID/EXPIRED), amount, currency pair, and payUrl. Use before calling invoice.pay to confirm the invoice is still OPEN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoiceId | Yes | Invoice UUID returned by invoice.create |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| amount | No | ||
| payUrl | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| expiresAt | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds value by specifying the status enum (OPEN/PAID/EXPIRED) and the workflow recommendation. No contradictions.
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 succinct sentences: first defines purpose and return fields, second provides a usage guideline. No extraneous information, front-loaded.
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 retrieval tool with a single parameter, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, returned fields, and workflow integration.
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% with invoiceId described as 'Invoice UUID returned by invoice.create'. The tool description echoes 'by ID' and 'Invoice UUID' without adding significant new meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Description states 'Retrieve an agent-to-agent invoice by ID' – a specific verb+resource. It lists returned fields (status, amount, currency pair, payUrl) and distinguishes from siblings like invoice.create and invoice.pay.
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 says 'Use before calling invoice.pay to confirm the invoice is still OPEN.' This provides clear when-to-use advice and a precondition check.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially within their domains (e.g., analytics, compliance, ESG, forecasting). However, a few tools like route and stability.stablecoin_route or settlement.quote and fx.cost_certainty may cause confusion despite distinct descriptions, and the large number of intelligence tools (cascade, aftershock, contagion, etc.) could lead to misselection without careful reading.
Naming follows a domain prefix pattern (e.g., agent.kya_register, settlement.quote, esg.score), which provides some structure. However, inconsistencies exist: some tools use underscores (batch_settle, flow_check), others are single words (route), and the mix of verb_noun and noun_verb styles (e.g., compliance.pep_screen vs market.fx) reduces predictability.
At 71 tools, the server is very broad in scope, covering compliance, ESG, forecasting, intelligence, treasury management, and more. While each tool seems justified for the complex institutional domain, the sheer number may overwhelm agents and makes the set feel bloated. A more focused scope or tighter tool grouping would improve appropriateness.
The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive for cross-border settlement, covering end-to-end workflow from quoting, FX analysis, compliance screening, ESG scoring, forecasting, and multiple payment rails (Mercury, Ramp, SWIFT). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update a settlement after execution), but core operations are well-covered, and the addition of integration and audit trails enhances completeness.