gf.payment_statusRead durable status or recovered result for a GF payment transaction without resending the signed payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeResult | No | ||
| transactionId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is a read and that it will not resend the signed payment, which is useful safety context. It does not mention authentication, failure behavior, or what 'durable status' means.
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, compact sentence with no filler. The core purpose and the key non-resending guarantee are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 low complexity, the description is minimally viable for selecting and invoking it with transactionId. However, with no output schema and no explanation of includeResult or the returned 'recovered result' shape, there are clear gaps an agent would need to resolve.
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 the description must compensate. It indirectly maps 'transaction' to transactionId and 'result' to includeResult, but it never explains what includeResult controls or how transactionId is used. This leaves the optional parameter's semantics unclear.
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 operation ('Read') and the resource ('durable status or recovered result for a GF payment transaction'). It is specific enough to identify the tool's function, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling status tools like gf.settlement_status or gf.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 phrase 'without resending the signed payment' implies a use case: retrieve status instead of re-sending the payment. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related status tools or provide exclusions or alternative conditions.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose, particularly among the GCC analysis services (free_profit_check, gcc_opportunity_score, gcc_product_decision) and the status reporting tools (agent_commerce_status, payment_status, settlement_status, universal_status). While descriptions clarify differences, an agent may struggle to choose between these related services without careful reading.
All tools use the 'gf.' prefix and snake_case, providing a consistent base. However, the pattern mixes noun_phrases (agent_budget, payment_status) with verb-based names (execute, quote) and adjective_noun combinations (free_profit_check), making the naming somewhat inconsistent in style though still readable.
At 18 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 15-tool sweet spot but remains reasonable for a comprehensive commerce gateway server that covers discovery, quoting, payment, status, and analytics. The scope justifies the number without feeling bloated.
The tool surface covers the main lifecycle: discovering capabilities, obtaining quotes, executing transactions, checking payment and settlement status, monitoring provider health, and reviewing metrics. Minor gaps exist (no explicit refund/cancel or merchant account creation), but these are not critical to the core workflows.