open_payment_link_wizardOpens the payment-link wizard — a graphical form pre-filled with the cobro, for the owner to review and confirm before any money moves. Side-effect-free (no charge).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Line items (productId + quantity). | |
| customerId | No | Customer ID (optional). | |
| description | Yes | Cobro description (e.g. '3 alfajores'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by clarifying that this is a graphical form, pre-filled with the cobro, and that no money is moved. This goes beyond the raw annotation flags and gives the agent a concrete understanding of the tool's side-effects and UI nature.
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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action, includes a clarifying em-dash, and ends with an explicit side-effect note. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or 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's simplicity, rich annotations, and fully described input schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly. It lacks an explicit statement of what 'cobro' refers to or how it relates to the parameters, but this is minor given the schema covers the fields. Overall it is complete enough for a UI-opening tool.
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 100%; each parameter (description, items, customerId) already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No reason to deviate.
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 the verb 'opens' with a specific resource ('payment-link wizard') and adds qualifiers ('pre-filled with the cobro', 'for the owner to review and confirm'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_sale_confirm or open_cobro_status, which serve different purposes. It answers what the tool does without vagueness.
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 implies when to use this tool: 'before any money moves' indicates it is a pre-payment review step. It also notes 'side-effect-free (no charge)', signaling it is safe to invoke. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it misses the highest tier of direct guidance.
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.