Create a hosted Stripe Checkout URL to unlock an owned lookup. This may cause a financial transaction only after the user opens and confirms payment on Stripe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly warns that this 'may cause a financial transaction only after the user opens and confirms payment on Stripe,' which is critical behavioral info. However, it does not detail other consequences (e.g., what 'unlock' entails or if it's reversible).
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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 explains the core function and the financial implication, but it omits what the tool returns (the URL), prerequisites (user must own a lookup), or how the returned URL is used. Given the tool's payment nature and single parameter, more context would be helpful.
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 description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'id' beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify what 'id' refers to (e.g., the lookup ID), but it does not. The schema provides a pattern and example, but the description omits explanation.
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 clearly states the action ('create'), the resource ('hosted Stripe Checkout URL'), and the purpose ('unlock an owned lookup'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools which are VAT-related, not payment-related.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it may cause a financial transaction but does not clarify prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it. Sibling tools are unrelated, but still lacks usage direction.
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 action: creating a checkout, creating a lookup, retrieving lookup state, and getting payment details. No overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (create_*, get_*).
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: creation, retrieval, and payment handling for VAT lookups.
Covers the core workflow (create, get, pay) but lacks list/delete operations for lookups, which are minor gaps.