Redeem a paid Stripe Checkout session for a dossier access token. Pass the session_id (cs_…) from the post-payment redirect after buy_dossier. Returns { token, entity_id, tier } — pass the token to get_dossier as its token input. Idempotent; fails with 402 not_paid until payment completes, so wait for the human to finish Checkout then call again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even though annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it is idempotent, returns a specific shape, fails with a specific error code before payment, and should be retried later. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 long, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds essential information: what to do, where to get the session_id, what it returns, and important failure/retry behavior. No filler or repetition.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It explains the input source, the output shape, the retry semantics, and how the output feeds into get_dossier, covering all likely failure points and the expected 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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining that session_id is the Stripe Checkout session ID from the post-payment redirect, including the cs_ prefix format and where to obtain it. This adds real semantic value beyond the bare schema.
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 ('Redeem a paid Stripe Checkout session for a dossier access token') and connects it to the buy_dossier and get_dossier flow, making it distinct from siblings. It names the exact resource type and product.
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 tells when to call it: after the post-payment redirect following buy_dossier. It also states what to do next with the token (pass to get_dossier) and that it will fail with 402 not_paid until payment completes, guiding wait-and-retry behavior.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes (search, lookup, get details, graph traversal, coverage maps, payment). Some overlap exists between lookup_company and lookup_by_identifier (both resolve identifiers, though one is UK-specific), and between get_entity vs get_company_details, but descriptions clarify distinctions. find_similar and semantic_search both find similar entities but different mechanisms.
Uses a mix of verb_noun and noun_phrases: buy_dossier, claim_dossier, check_offshore_exposure, find_similar, get_pricing, get_pulse, graph_neighbourhood, list_asset_coverage, lookup_by_identifier, search_entities, trace_ownership_path. While most use underscores and verbs like get/lookup/search/list, there are inconsistencies like 'graph_neighbourhood' (noun start) vs 'trace_ownership_path' (verb start). Overall readable but not perfectly consistent.
23 tools is at the high end but justifiable for a comprehensive intelligence server covering search, lookup, graph, coverage, payments, and entity details. 'buy_dossier' is considered one of the tools and adds bulk but not excessive. It is appropriate for the scope.
Covers a wide range: search (search_entities, search_companies, semantic_search), identifier lookup (lookup_by_identifier, lookup_company), entity details (get_entity, get_company_details, get_financials), graph (graph_neighbourhood, graph_path, trace_ownership_path), coverage maps (list_jurisdictions, list_asset_coverage), sanctions (get_sanctions, check_offshore_exposure), plus payment flow (get_pricing, buy_dossier, claim_dossier, get_payment_link). Missing perhaps a 'get_relationships' separate tool but get_entity includes direct relationships. Also no explicit 'list_entities' but search covers it. Minor gaps like no bulk operations besides resolve.
