PAID. Create payment QR codes for a whole batch of payments in one call — e.g. an invoice run. The free qr_payment tool handles one payment per call; this one returns the whole set. Requires payment via x402; call without payment first to receive the terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payments | Yes | Up to 50 payments. Each QR is generated and verified independently. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims 'Create payment QR codes', a write operation, but annotations set readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction. While the description does add behavioral context (payment requirement), the contradiction undermines trust.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with 'PAID'. Every sentence adds value: batch purpose, differentiation from sibling, and payment workflow. No wasted words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description explains it returns the whole set. It mentions independent verification per QR. Lacks detail on exact return format, but adequate for basic use with sibling tool context.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions; the 'payments' array and its sub-properties are fully documented. The description adds batch context but no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 the tool creates payment QR codes for a batch, specifies the use case ('invoice run'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'qr_payment' tool which handles one payment per call.
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 tells when to use this tool (for batch) vs 'qr_payment' (single). Also mentions payment requirement via x402 and instructs to call without payment first to receive terms.
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 QR code type or action: payment (single/batch), reading, text, vCard, and WiFi. No overlap in purpose; descriptions clearly differentiate.
All tools follow a consistent 'qr_<purpose>' pattern (e.g., qr_payment, qr_read). Underscores and lowercase are used uniformly.
Six tools cover the core QR generation and reading needs without being excessive. Each tool has a clear role, and the count feels appropriate for the domain.
The tool set covers common QR code types (text, vCard, WiFi) and payment QR both singly and in batch, plus a decoder. No significant gaps for the stated purpose.