get_checkout_policiesReturn legal policy URLs required before checkout
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | True when the upstream storefront call returned a 2xx response | |
| httpStatus | Yes | Upstream HTTP status code | |
| paymentRequired | No | True when the response is an x402 HTTP 402 payment challenge |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns URLs specifically, but it does not disclose potential errors or edge cases. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.
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 a single sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the imperative verb 'Return'. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 has no parameters, output schema exists, and annotations cover behavioral safety, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and when to use it. It is complete for a simple read-only utility.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema's description coverage is 100% (empty object). Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource ('legal policy URLs') and context ('required before checkout'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_checkout and payment_policy_decide.
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 phrase 'required before checkout' explicitly indicates when the tool should be used, implying it should be called before initiating checkout. While it does not name alternative tools or exclusions, it provides sufficient timing context for an agent.
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 clearly distinct purposes. Some overlap exists (e.g., dealanalyzer_analyze combines CashflowLens and WaterfallLens; action_safety_run includes DestructGuard evidence), but descriptions explicitly clarify scope so an agent can choose correctly.
Naming patterns are mixed: some verbs precede nouns (get_product, purchase_with_x402), others follow nouns (bond_analyze, portfolioguard_score), and some are multi-word (action_safety_quick_gate). This inconsistency makes tool selection less predictable.
At 25 tools, the server is at the heavy end and spans diverse subdomains (safety, payments, financial analytics, storefront). While each tool serves a purpose, the broad scope makes it feel overloaded for a single server.
Core assurance workflows (safety, payment, verification) are covered, but gaps exist: no refund/cancellation tools, no attestation lookup, and no way to retrieve 30-day action-safety status records. Financial analytics also have limited coverage (no equities).