Compile a multi-rail merchant payment policy with authorization, spending, settlement, receipt, deny, and refund rules. $0.02/call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reversible | Yes | ||
| product_type | Yes | ||
| max_latency_ms | Yes | ||
| max_price_usdc | Yes | ||
| supported_assets | Yes | ||
| refund_capability | Yes | ||
| human_authorization_required | Yes |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only mentions a per-call cost. It does not disclose whether the tool creates persistent state, requires authentication, has side effects, or what the output format is.
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 sentences with no filler; the first states the core purpose and the second adds pricing information. It is front-loaded and easily scannable.
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?
Despite the tool's complexity (7 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal and omits critical context such as return value structure, behavioral constraints, and parameter semantics. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.
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 has seven required parameters with zero descriptions, and the tool description does not explain any of them. The mention of 'refund rules' loosely relates to refund_capability, but the other six parameters (e.g., product_type, max_latency_ms) are completely unaddressed.
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 a specific verb ('compile') and resource ('multi-rail merchant payment policy') with a list of rule types, making its function clear. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the scope is distinctive.
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 no information about when to use this tool, what triggers its use, or how it compares to sibling tools like settlement_verify or x402_receipt_lookup. There are no usage conditions or exclusions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.