check_field_agent_paymentFree. Poll a Field Agent payment. When funding_verified becomes true the Nexus Factory Router may claim and execute the task automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment_id | Yes | AlpineLead agent payment id returned after Stripe/MPP funding. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / payment_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"AlpineLead agent payment id returned by fund_field_agent_task."New value: +"AlpineLead agent payment id returned after Stripe/MPP funding."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it is free, it is a polling operation, and the transition of funding_verified true can trigger automatic claiming/execution by the Nexus Factory Router. This helps the agent understand side effects and cost implications.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact ('Free') and immediately followed by the core action and its triggering condition. There is no filler 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?
For a simple one-parameter polling tool with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete enough. It communicates cost, the polling behavior, and the important downstream consequence without needing to explain return values.
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 already provides 100% coverage for the single required parameter, payment_id, including its purpose. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific action ('Poll') and a specific resource ('a Field Agent payment'), so an agent can tell it deals with payment status rather than creating or funding a payment. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, but the verb and object are precise enough.
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 gives clear contextual guidance: poll until funding_verified becomes true, at which point the Nexus Factory Router may automatically claim and execute the task. It does not list alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the intended polling use case is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.