Retrieve an agent-to-agent invoice by ID. Returns status (OPEN/PAID/EXPIRED), amount, currency pair, and payUrl. Use before calling invoice.pay to confirm the invoice is still OPEN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoiceId | Yes | Invoice UUID returned by invoice.create |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| amount | No | ||
| payUrl | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| expiresAt | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying return fields (status, amount, currency pair, payUrl) and the practical implication that the invoice must be OPEN for payment, enriching the behavioral context.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by useful return-value details and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
The tool is simple (one required parameter, one resource) and the description covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. Combined with strong annotations and full schema coverage, no essential information is missing.
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 parameter 'invoiceId', describing it as 'Invoice UUID returned by invoice.create'. The description does not add further parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' with the resource 'agent-to-agent invoice by ID', and explicitly lists what it returns (status, amount, currency pair, payUrl). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like invoice.create and invoice.pay.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use before calling invoice.pay to confirm the invoice is still OPEN.' This tells the agent when to invoke it relative to a related action. It could be clearer about when not to use it, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient context.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple stablecoin routing options (route vs stability.stablecoin_route), several compliance pre-checks (flow_check, policy.check, mercury.ach_authorize), and numerous FX/stability tools (oracle.stability, stability.corridor, market.fx, fx.rate). Even with detailed descriptions, the boundaries are subtle and an agent could easily select the wrong tool.
The dot-separated namespace convention is mostly consistent and readable, but verb vs noun usage varies (e.g., settlement.execute vs batch_settle vs route). Subscription tools also mix forms (intelligence.subscribe vs intelligence.subscription.get/delete), showing minor inconsistency.
81 tools is an extreme count for a settlement server. Even accounting for the broad 'institutional' scope, the volume overwhelms the core purpose and creates a heavy cognitive load for agents, far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped tool set.
The core settlement lifecycle is well-covered (quote, execute, track, receipt, batch), but there are notable gaps such as missing policy update/delete and no receipt retrieval (only create). While many tangential domains are over-covered, certain CRUD operations are absent, creating dead ends.