confirm_paymentAfter paying the invoice from join_game (stake_sats): claim your seat. payout_lnaddr is the Lightning address (user@domain) your winnings are sent to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | Yes | Session id from join_game. | |
| payout_lnaddr | Yes | Lightning address for your payout, e.g. you@getalby.com. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description usefully adds that it is a post-payment confirmation step bound to a join_game session, but it does not say what a failed/unpaid confirmation does, nor what the confirming action transitions the seat into.
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 short sentences, zero filler. The precondition is front-loaded ahead of the parameter explanation, which is exactly the order an agent needs.
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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the workflow context and both fields adequately. There is no output schema, so the only real gap is that it never says what a successful confirmation yields (a held seat, a started game) or how to know it succeeded.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: it explains that payout_lnaddr is the destination that winnings are actually sent to, flagging a financially consequential field. It also clarifies that session is issued by join_game rather than being an arbitrary identifier.
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 states a specific verb and outcome ('confirm' -> 'claim your seat') and ties it to a concrete prerequisite (the invoice paid via join_game with stake_sats). This distinguishes it from siblings like join_game and leave_queue without the agent needing to open either schema.
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?
It gives explicit temporal/state guidance: call this AFTER paying the invoice produced by join_game, in order to claim the seat. What is missing is any when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. what happens if the invoice is unpaid or the session is expired), but the trigger condition is unambiguous.
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.