Return a checkout's CURRENT sealed snapshot. Facet seals price and items at create, so this is a no-op that reports the session plus a note: to change line items, update the cart and start a new checkout with create_checkout(cart_id). Owner-scoped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The checkout session id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses that this is a no-op, that the checkout is sealed at create, that it returns the session plus a note, and that it is owner-scoped. This goes beyond a simple 'update' and prevents misuse.
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 succinct sentences: first states the core function, second explains the behavior and alternative. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or padding.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the essential aspects: what it does, its no-op nature, the alternative workflow, and ownership scope. Nothing important 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 schema already fully describes the only parameter (id) with 100% coverage. The description adds owner-scoped context but does not add additional meaning about the id parameter itself, so the baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and the specific resource 'checkout's CURRENT sealed snapshot', and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by explaining it's a no-op and directing users to update_cart + create_checkout for changes. Despite the misleading name, the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool (to get the current sealed snapshot) and when not to (to change line items), naming the alternative workflow: update the cart and start a new checkout with create_checkout(cart_id). This provides clear guidance on alternatives.
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.
Most tools map to a distinct lifecycle step, and the detailed descriptions separate discovery, cart, checkout, payment, order, and wishlist concerns well. However, get_product and lookup_catalog are largely the same lookup by identifier, discover_products and search_catalog overlap across scope, and update_checkout is actually a read-only no-op.
The set overwhelmingly follows a verb_noun pattern: create_cart, get_checkout, cancel_checkout, complete_checkout, search_catalog. Minor deviations are the wishlist_* resource-first subgroup and the misleading update_checkout, which does not perform an update.
At 23 tools, this sits at the heavy end of the range, though the broad commerce lifecycle does justify substantial surface area. The count is inflated by redundant product lookup tools and a no-op update_checkout, so a more trimmed set in the low-to-mid teens would be healthier.
The server covers the full shopper lifecycle well: discovery, product lookup, cart, checkout, payment, order placement, order read, refunds, and wishlist. Gaps are minor and workable, such as update_checkout not actually supporting updates and no explicit order-cancellation path once a checkout is complete.
