Pay for a fresh merchant inspection and cache refresh. Show the price and get explicit human approval first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Stable, non-secret identifier for the calling agent | |
| approved | Yes | Explicit human approval for this priced refresh | |
| merchant_url | Yes | Public HTTPS merchant URL |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context not present in annotations: the tool incurs a cost and requires explicit human approval before execution. Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only and non-idempotent, so the description enhances transparency without contradicting annotations.
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 highly concise: two sentences, no filler, and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words and clearly conveys the primary purpose and key precondition.
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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: paid refresh, price display, and approval. However, it does not describe the return value or post-conditions, leaving a minor gap for an agent to infer expected outputs.
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%, with each parameter (merchant_url, agent_id, approved) already described. The description reinforces the 'approved' parameter's purpose by mentioning 'explicit human approval', but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a specific action ('Pay for a fresh merchant inspection and cache refresh') with a clear resource (merchant) and outcome (cache refresh). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like inspect_merchant by emphasizing the paid, refreshed nature and the requirement for human approval.
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 usage for getting fresh merchant data (via payment) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The approval requirement is clear, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over inspect_merchant or check_merchant.
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.
