Get a Stripe payment link to add funds. For B2C: buy credit packs (Starter/Writer/Author/Storyteller). For B2B: top up prepaid balance with preset amounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pack | No | B2C only: starter=40cr/$10.99, writer=120cr/$20.99, author=350cr/$38.99, storyteller=600cr/$40.99 | starter |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility. It discloses that a Stripe payment link is returned and that funds are added, but it omits details like authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., if the link expires), or whether the operation is synchronous. More transparency would be beneficial.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the primary action and then elaborate on use cases. Every sentence adds value without 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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and use cases. It lacks some behavioral details (e.g., return format aside from 'payment link', auth requirements), but overall it is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool.
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 100% coverage with a detailed description of the 'pack' parameter. The tool description adds B2C vs B2B context but does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameter beyond the schema. Baseline for full schema coverage is 3.
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 it returns a Stripe payment link to add funds, and distinguishes between B2C (buying credit packs) and B2B (topping up prepaid balance). It is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like get_balance.
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 explains when to use the tool (to add funds) and provides context for B2C vs B2B usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though none are apparent.
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 have mostly distinct purposes. The only potential overlap is between create_story and quake_story, but quake_story is explicitly a 'do-over' with limitations, so confusion is minimal.
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_story, get_balance), but 'login' and 'signup' are single verbs, and 'quake_story' uses an unconventional verb. This is a minor inconsistency.
With 10 tools covering account management, payments, story CRUD, and specialized operations (quake, remix), the count is well-scoped for the platform's purpose.
Covers core lifecycle (create, read, list, delete stories) plus payments and authentication. Missing update_story for editing metadata, but this is a minor gap.