Initiate checkout for a cart. Provide cart_token from add_to_cart and a billing email. Returns a payment_token required to complete the purchase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| cart_token | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that a payment_token is returned and needed for completion, but does not mention side effects like holds or charges, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's behavior.
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?
Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, required inputs, and output. No unnecessary information; front-loaded with the core action.
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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, but it mentions the key output (payment_token). For a simple tool with two required params, it covers the flow and dependencies, though error conditions are not addressed.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains that cart_token comes from add_to_cart and email is a billing email. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions, though format constraints or examples are omitted.
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 'Initiate checkout for a cart' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing cart_token from add_to_cart and returning payment_token for confirm_payment, establishing the logical flow.
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 advises using cart_token from add_to_cart and a billing email, implying the tool is used after add_to_cart and before confirm_payment. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is 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 distinct purpose in the purchase flow: searching products, getting details, adding to cart, checking out, and confirming payment. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., add_to_cart, get_product). Even 'checkout' is a standard verb that fits the pattern.
Five tools cover the core e-commerce workflow without redundancy. The number is appropriate for the server's purpose of handling basic store operations.
The set covers the essential purchase lifecycle from search to payment confirmation. Minor gaps like cart modification or order history are absent but not critical for a basic store.