Get payment URLs and USDC wallet address for both audit tiers.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_payment_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval operation with no side effects, but does not mention authorization, rate limits, or any behavioral nuances. For a simple getter with zero parameters, the disclosure is adequate but minimal.
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 with 11 words, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more explicit about the structure of the returned data (e.g., format of URLs, whether both tiers are returned in a single response). However, for a zero-parameter tool of low complexity, the current description provides a functional minimum.
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, so the description does not need to add parameter info. The schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's output, adding no confusion.
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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resources: 'payment URLs and USDC wallet address'. It also specifies scope ('for both audit tiers'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with brand audits and geographic checks. The purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for retrieving payment info, but does not state when not to use it or provide comparative context. The simplicity of the tool (no parameters) makes this gap minor.
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.