payment_info
How to pay, step by step. Read this if you got a 402 and are not sure what to do.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Autosophia Agent Video
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies the tool is informational ('How to pay, step by step') but doesn't explicitly state it's read-only or describe what the response looks like. For an info tool, the behavioral intent is sufficiently clear, but a more explicit disclosure would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the purpose and usage condition. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the trigger (402) and the content (payment steps). It doesn't detail the exact return format, but for an info tool, this is not a critical gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so description adds no param details, but none are needed. The absence of parameters is self-evident, and the baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: providing step-by-step payment instructions. It specifically mentions 'How to pay, step by step' and the trigger 'got a 402', distinguishing it from all sibling tools (video, jobs, voices, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Read this if you got a 402 and are not sure what to do,' which clearly tells when to use the tool. It doesn't name alternatives, but no sibling tool serves a similar payment-info purpose, so the usage context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct role in the video generation workflow: submit creates, get_job polls, fetch_video retrieves the result, list_jobs lists history, and the remaining tools cover voices, payment, service info, and feedback. There is no meaningful overlap between tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (submit_video_job, get_job, fetch_video, list_jobs, list_voices), but payment_info and service_info use a noun_info pattern. This is a minor deviation; all names are clear, snake_case, and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a video generation service. It covers job submission, monitoring, retrieval, listing, voice selection, and two informational endpoints, without unnecessary bloat or a feeling of incompleteness.
Completeness4/5
The core lifecycle is covered: submit, poll, fetch, and list jobs, plus listing voices and payment guidance. The only notable gap is the lack of job cancellation or update operations, but agents can work around this since the service is fire-and-forget.