buy_credits_linkGet a link to add credit.
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": "buy_credits_link"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_usd | No | How much credit to add. Rounded up to a pack of 5, 10, 25, 50 or 100 USD. Default 5. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not mention whether the link expires, requires authentication, or what happens after the link is generated.
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 a single short sentence with no verbosity, so it is concise and front-loaded. However, the sentence merely repeats the title and does not earn much additional value, making it minimally adequate rather than strong.
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 low complexity (one optional parameter), full schema description coverage, and rich annotations, the description is minimally sufficient to call the tool. It still omits useful context about the returned link and any follow-up behavior, but the structured fields carry most of the burden.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the single amount_usd parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default and rounding behavior. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 is essentially a tautology: it restates the title 'Get a link to add credit' almost word for word. While an agent can infer the basic action, there is no differentiation from siblings such as get_balance, and no additional specificity about what the link is for or what it enables.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_balance or catalog_search. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues to help the agent choose correctly.
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.