Payments received by the coach (amount, status, method, client, plan), newest first. Amounts are in minor units.
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": "list_payments"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageSize | No | ||
| pageNumber | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's added value is the newest-first ordering and the minor-units note, both genuinely non-obvious and not present in annotations or schema. It stops short of explaining pagination behavior, whether a total count is returned, or whether the list is limited to a time window.
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 short sentences, no filler, with the core scope stated first and the units caveat attached immediately. Nothing is wasted.
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?
Field list and ordering make the return shape reasonably clear without an output schema, and readOnlyHint covers safety. But for a paginated list tool sitting among a dozen payment siblings, the absence of scope differentiation and pagination semantics leaves real gaps.
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 description coverage is 0%, so both pageSize and pageNumber are undocumented in structured form, and the description says nothing about pagination at all. With low coverage the description was expected to compensate, and it does not, leaving the agent to discover defaults and limits by trial.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('payments received by the coach') and even enumerates the returned fields (amount, status, method, client, plan) plus ordering. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the numerous sibling payment-listing tools (list_client_payments, list_organization_payments, list_seller_invoices, list_direct_payment_claims), so an agent cannot tell which scope applies without guessing.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many payment-related siblings, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer scope ('received by the coach') entirely on its own.
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.