robyn_plus_invoiceCreates an invoice for one bundle (500 passes, $3 quoted in the chosen asset). Returns {invoiceId, payTo, amount (base units), human, chainId, expires}. Pay from any wallet; then blind tokens locally with the SDK and call robyn_plus_claim. For btc pass refundAddress (your BTC address) — the invoice returns a Chainflip deposit address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | ||
| refundAddress | No | btc only |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a creation operation (mutation), returns specific fields, and has a payment flow requiring follow-up actions. It could be more explicit about side effects (e.g., does it create an on-chain invoice? any cost?), but it gives enough behavioral context for an agent to proceed.
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 concise, two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and return format. The second sentence adds essential usage detail. No redundant wording.
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 (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete: it states the output shape, the acceptance of any wallet, the follow-up claim call, and the special BTC requirement. It lacks details like timeout, payment confirmation expectations, or error scenarios, but these are not critical for basic invocation.
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 50%, meaning only 'refundAddress' has a description ('btc only'), while 'asset' only has an enum. The description clarifies that 'asset' selects the asset for the invoice and that 'refundAddress' is for BTC, adding meaning beyond the enum. However, it does not explain the format of refundAddress (e.g., bech32 vs legacy) or the precise meaning of each supported asset (e.g., chain specifics), but it compensates for the gap.
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 the tool creates an invoice for a specific bundle (500 passes, $3 quoted) in the chosen asset, and it is distinct from siblings like robyn_plus_claim and robyn_plus_invoice_status. The verb 'creates' with the resource 'invoice' and scope 'for one bundle' makes the purpose explicit.
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 explicitly says to use this tool to create an invoice, then pay from any wallet, blind tokens locally, and call robyn_plus_claim, which provides a clear workflow. It also includes critical guidance for btc refundAddress, telling the agent to provide a BTC address and mentioning the Chainflip deposit address, which is essential for correct usage.
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.