Get a link to upgrade the account to Pro (raises the monthly quota).
Returns a Stripe Checkout URL for the human to open and pay — no pingwa password needed, the card is handled by Stripe. If the account is already Pro, returns a billing-portal URL to manage or cancel instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a URL, does not require a password, uses Stripe for payment, and behaves differently for already-Pro accounts. No contradictory or missing behavioral details.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently explains the two return URL cases. Every sentence is informative 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 zero parameters and a clear self-contained description, the description fully explains the tool's behavior and return types. The existence of an output schema is noted but the description already covers the return value semantics.
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 input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no further parameter details, but baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 tool returns a link to upgrade the account to Pro, and specifies two distinct outcomes (Stripe Checkout URL for non-Pro, billing portal URL for existing Pro). The verb 'Get a link' and resource 'upgrade the account' are 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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to upgrade to Pro or manage/cancel existing Pro. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools (ask, check_replies, etc.), but the context is sufficient for correct usage.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: ask (blocking question), check_replies (retrieve messages), notify (send notification), check_status (account info), upgrade (plan management). There is some overlap between ask and check_replies, but descriptions clarify their different purposes.
All tool names are single lowercase verbs, following a consistent verb-only naming pattern. No mixing of conventions.
Five tools is appropriate for the server's purpose of WhatsApp interaction, covering core actions without being excessive or too sparse.
The tool set covers key operations: asking questions, retrieving replies, sending notifications, checking status, and upgrading. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no separate send image tool), but the core workflow is supported.