recover_commerce_purchaseResume an uncertain buyer authorization with the same purchase identity and economic idempotency key, without creating a second charge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purchaseId | Yes | ||
| buyerWalletId | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and the description aligns with those by describing a resume/recovery action rather than a new charge. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the operation is idempotent with the same key and avoids a second charge, which is valuable safety information. It does not cover error/status behavior, but given the annotations, this is a modest gap.
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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource while placing the key safety guarantee ('without creating a second charge') at the end, and every clause earns its place.
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?
With no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description gives enough to identify purpose and the no-second-charge behavior, but it does not explain expected return/status, preconditions, or how this differs from recover_authorized_purchase. It is adequate for basic invocation but has meaningful gaps for an agent operating in a complex commerce flow.
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?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must carry parameter meaning. It connects purchaseId to 'same purchase identity' and idempotencyKey to 'economic idempotency key,' explaining their role in preventing duplicate charges. However, buyerWalletId is never addressed, leaving one of three required parameters without additional semantic guidance beyond its self-evident name.
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 names a specific action ('Resume') and resource ('uncertain buyer authorization' / commerce purchase), and it explains that the recovery uses the same purchase identity and idempotency key without creating a second charge. This is clear and informative, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from the similarly named sibling recover_authorized_purchase.
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 establishes a clear when-to-use context: a previously initiated buyer authorization is uncertain and should be resumed rather than recreated. The phrase 'without creating a second charge' also signals a key constraint that prevents the agent from using a new-purchase tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
The set has multiple near-synonymous read and recovery surfaces, e.g. get_commerce_purchase_status vs get_purchase_recovery_status vs recover_authorized_purchase vs recover_commerce_purchase, and discover_assurance_services vs discover_commerce_index vs get_discovery_manifest vs search_verified_offers. Long descriptions are required to tell them apart, so misselection is likely.
All names follow a readable snake_case verb_noun pattern, with get_, request_, create_, verify_, and recover_ prefixes used consistently. The main deviation is read operations split across get_/discover_/inspect_/search_/list_, which is still understandable but not perfectly uniform.
At 50 tools this is in the extreme-mismatch band for an MCP server. Even with a broad payment/commerce/discovery domain, dozens of get/status/recovery tools could be consolidated or parameterized.
The toolset covers the major lifecycles: registration, wallet, funding, payment, commerce offer/purchase/fulfillment/refund, mandates, and verification. Minor gaps such as no service unregister/update, no payment-request cancellation, and no wallet deletion are workable but not fatal.