pro_checkoutMint a Pro account token plus a Stripe subscription checkout URL ($8/mo, 3 always-on databases included). Persist pro_token immediately; the human pays in a browser. Never start checkout without the user's explicit request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it persists the pro_token immediately, generates a Stripe checkout URL for payment, and requires explicit user request. It does not elaborate on failure modes or post-payment steps, but for a simple tool this is sufficient.
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 three sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and details, second adds a behavioral note, third provides a crucial warning. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it creates, the cost, included databases, the persistence action, and a usage warning. It could mention post-payment flow but is largely complete.
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?
There are 0 parameters; the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but given no parameters exist, the baseline of 4 applies.
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's action: 'Mint a Pro account token plus a Stripe subscription checkout URL'. It identifies the resource (Pro subscription) and a specific verb (mint). The context of $8/mo and 3 databases differentiates it from sibling tools like pro_cancel or pro_create_database.
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 explicitly warns 'Never start checkout without the user's explicit request', providing a critical usage guideline. It doesn't directly compare to alternatives, but the context of siblings makes the purpose clear.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose, with descriptions that differentiate similar operations (e.g., create_database vs pro_create_database vs pro_attach_database). Agents can easily select the correct tool.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern, but 'database_status' is noun_verb. The 'pro_' prefix is consistently used for Pro account tools. Overall pattern is clear and predictable.
16 tools cover the full lifecycle of temporary databases, document CRUD, collection management, and Pro account operations. Each tool is justified and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool surface provides complete CRUD for documents, database lifecycle (create, delete, extend, status), and full Pro account management (checkout, cancel, create, attach, list). No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.