Get a payment product by internal id or public slug.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_payment_product"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| slug | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but there is no statement about what happens when the product is not found, whether the lookup is permissioned, or how ambiguity is handled if both keys are passed.
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?
A single 11-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and carrying no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 read-only lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core intent but leaves the required-parameter question and the returned shape unaddressed. Given 0% schema coverage and 0 required parameters, an agent has to guess what a valid call looks like.
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 does add real meaning by labeling id as internal and slug as public. However, it never says which of the two are required (schema says none), whether both may be supplied, or which takes precedence, leaving the caller unsure how to form a valid request.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a payment product') and names the two lookup keys, which distinguishes it from list_payment_products and create_payment_product by implication. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
'by internal id or public slug' implies the tool is for fetching a known product rather than browsing, but it never says when to use this versus list_payment_products, nor any precondition for having an id/slug in hand.
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.