Return current merchant-owned action URLs, exact inputs, authority, confirmation, expiry, retry rules, recovery, and attribution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | No | ||
| action_type | No | ||
| merchant_url | Yes | ||
| allowed_authority | No | ||
| human_confirmation_available | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by indicating that the response includes 'current' state plus fields like 'authority', 'confirmation', 'expiry', 'retry rules', 'recovery', and 'attribution', giving the agent a clearer picture of what the read operation returns.
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 that front-loads the verb 'Return' and efficiently enumerates the return fields. No wasted words 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?
Without an output schema or parameter advice, the description is insufficient for an agent to know how the parameters map to the tool's behavior or when to invoke it. It lists output fields but does not connect them to input semantics or provide operational context.
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?
None of the five parameters (merchant_url, client_id, action_type, allowed_authority, human_confirmation_available) are explained in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does nothing to compensate, leaving parameter meaning and usage completely unspecified.
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 the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'current merchant-owned action URLs' with a detailed list of attributes (exact inputs, authority, confirmation, expiry, retry rules, recovery, attribution). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_merchants and preflight.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_merchant or get_service_info. It lacks any mention of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or alternative tools.
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.
Clear purpose separation exists among query/search/compare tools, but inspect_merchant is a direct alias for refresh_merchant, and check_merchant, resolve_merchant, and preflight all involve resolving merchant context in ways that could cause misselection. The overlapping inspection/resolution family makes boundaries unclear despite distinct descriptions.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (search_merchants, get_safe_actions, refresh_merchant), but preflight is a single verb with no object and inspect_merchant/refresh_merchant are inconsistent synonyms for the same operation. Otherwise naming is predictable.
Nine tools is within the typical well-scoped range and covers search, inspection, comparison, and action-selection concerns. However, inspect_merchant duplicates refresh_merchant, so the effective tool count is inflated by one redundant alias.
The server covers the core merchant-context lifecycle: cached resolution, paid refresh, search, comparison, safe-action retrieval, and full preflight. Minor gaps exist in documenting what check_merchant adds beyond resolve_merchant, and no explicit execution tool is included, though action execution may be outside scope.
