run_stripe_receipt_completionComplete a paid rail run from checkout session or payment reference, then return Receipt Passport, ledger entry, and Proof Relay state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rail_key | No | ||
| movement_type | No | ||
| payment_reference | No | ||
| stripe_session_id | No | ||
| movement_amount_units | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating a mutation, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the completion is irreversible, requires specific permissions, is idempotent, or has side effects beyond returning three items. The description mentions outputs but not the operational impact, leaving a transparency gap for a write operation.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs the core action and outputs efficiently. Every phrase contributes to understanding, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 tool has five parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, so the description needs to provide more explicit detail. It names three return entities (Receipt Passport, ledger entry, Proof Relay state) but does not describe their structure or the conditions for successful completion. It also omits prerequisites, error handling, and side effects, making it incomplete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies that 'checkout session' maps to stripe_session_id and 'payment reference' to payment_reference, but it leaves rail_key, movement_type, and movement_amount_units completely unexplained. With five parameters and zero schema descriptions, this partial semantics is insufficient.
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 clearly states a specific action: 'Complete a paid rail run from checkout session or payment reference, then return Receipt Passport, ledger entry, and Proof Relay state.' It names the resource (paid rail run) and the outputs, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from very similar sibling tools like 'complete_paid_rail_run_with_callback', so it is not a perfect 5.
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 implies usage when you have a Stripe checkout session or payment reference and need to complete a rail run, but it provides no explicit 'when to use' guidance or exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, so the agent cannot infer when to choose this over sibling tools like 'complete_paid_rail_run_with_callback' or 'verify_stripe_movement_fee_payment'.
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.
With 89 tools, there is extensive overlap. For example, multiple tools handle completing paid rail runs (complete_agent_self_serve_paid_rail_run, complete_paid_rail_run_with_callback, run_stripe_receipt_completion) and several verify receipts (verify_receipt, verify_managed_receipt_signature, verify_signature_by_version). Distinguishing between these without deep inspection is nearly impossible.
Most tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., start_rail_run, get_run_status, verify_receipt). However, there are minor deviations like 'credential_aware_mcp_write' which is not verb-first, making it slightly inconsistent. Overall the naming is quite uniform.
89 tools is an extreme count, far beyond the typical 3-15 or even 25+. This suggests the server is trying to cover too many sub-domains, making the tool surface unwieldy and difficult to navigate.
The tool surface is extremely broad, covering discovery, quoting, payment, run lifecycle, receipts, credentials, directory submission, compliance, and verification. It lacks some expected operations like cancellation or refund, but these are niche and the core workflows are well-covered.