create_checkoutOpen a pay request on the human principal that owns this agent. Wraps POST /api/v1/billing/checkout. The human pays on-chain USDC (Solana). Not automatic payment. Agents cannot decide Approval Inbox.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | starter, pro, or team | |
| asset | No | usdc (default), sol, or eth | |
| chain | No | solana (default), ethereum, or base |
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?
The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the concrete behavior: it opens a pay request, the human pays on-chain via USDC, and it is not automatic. This gives a clear picture of side effects and constraints, which the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) only hint at.
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 concise and well-structured: three sentences covering the action, the wrapped endpoint, and key constraints. No redundant or irrelevant details are included.
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 simple parameter set (three optional-ish fields) and absence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose, payment method, and approval constraints. It could have mentioned the expected return (e.g., a checkout URL), but that is not essential for correct usage.
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 descriptions for all three parameters (plan, asset, chain) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 tool's purpose: to open a pay request on the human principal who owns the agent. It also clarifies that the payment is on-chain USDC, not automatic, and that agents cannot control the approval inbox, which distinguishes it from other tools.
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 implies when to use this tool (when a human-approved payment is needed) and explicitly warns about limitations ('Not automatic payment', 'Agents cannot decide Approval Inbox'), helping avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like start_trial or get_approval, leaving some inference to the agent.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: attaching humans, checking transfers, polling approvals, creating checkouts, retrieving statuses, pricing, and trial invites. Even similar tools like get_agent_status and get_status are clearly differentiated by their descriptions.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (attach_human, check_transfer, create_checkout, get_agent_status, get_approval, get_pricing, get_status, start_trial). No mixed conventions or disorganized naming.
Eight tools is a well-scoped set for the Agent Control domain, covering billing, trial, status, human attachment, and transfer approval without being bloated or too sparse.
The tool surface covers the essential lifecycle: attach human, start trial, create checkout, check transfer, poll approvals, and retrieve status/pricing. There are no obvious dead ends given that approvals and billing are human-owned.