gf.payment_status
gf.payment_statusRead durable payment state or a recovered result without resending a signed payment.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
gf.payment_statusRead durable payment state or a recovered result without resending a signed payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -falseNew value: +{}Input schema / properties / includeResultRemoved value: -{
- "type": "boolean"
-}Input schema / properties / transactionIdRemoved value: -{
- "minLength": 1,
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "transactionId"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate a key behavioral trait: this is a read operation that does not resend a signed payment, implying safe/idempotent checking. It stops short of describing error behavior, staleness, or what 'durable' and 'recovered result' mean operationally.
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 focused sentence that front-loads the action and includes only the essential qualifier about not resending a signed payment. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition.
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 low complexity (zero parameters) and no annotations, the description provides enough to understand the tool's core purpose. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify the shape or type of the returned state/result, and it lacks guidance for choosing among similar sibling status tools.
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 input schema is fully documented as an empty object. The description reinforces that the tool simply reads state without requiring inputs, so there is no parameter ambiguity to compensate for.
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 ('Read') with a clear resource ('durable payment state or a recovered result') and adds a meaningful exclusion ('without resending a signed payment'). It is more specific than a vague status phrase, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling status tools like settlement_status or universal_status.
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 the primary use case: check payment state when resending a signed payment is not desired. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling status tools or provide any when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.
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.