get_aliev_purchase_statusCheck an AliEV purchase and, when both purchase key and checkout session are supplied, allow AliEV to re-verify provider payment before reporting paid state. Read-only from the buyer perspective.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | No | ||
| purchase_key | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the re-verification behavior and its trigger condition, and reaffirms the buyer-perspective read-only nature without contradicting the 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 compact, two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. The first sentence is somewhat convoluted due to the embedded conditional, but it contains no wasted words and remains efficient.
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?
For a simple status tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the main purpose and one conditional behavior. However, it leaves unspecified what happens when only one parameter is supplied, what the response looks like, and what 'verified paid state' means, which an agent might need to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names 'purchase key' and 'checkout session', which likely map to purchase_key and session_id, but it does not explicitly link them or explain what each parameter means beyond that. This is partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.
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 verb and resource ('Check an AliEV purchase') and adds a conditional re-verification detail, making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings by name, but the resource and action are distinct enough from the listed alternatives.
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?
Usage is implied: call this to check purchase status. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling to prefer in alternative scenarios. The conditional 'when both purchase key and checkout session are supplied' hints at a specific mode but does not frame it as a choice among 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.