生成活动报名的支付链接和二维码。
报名后通过此工具获取支付链接，用户扫码或点击链接完成微信支付。
Args:
order_id: 订单号（优先使用，从 register_event 结果中获取）
activity_id: 活动 ID（无订单号时配合手机号使用）
phone: 手机号（配合活动 ID 查找订单）
Returns:
JSON 字符串，包含支付链接、二维码 URL、支付方式和有效期
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | No | 付款人手机号 | |
| order_id | No | 订单号，报名成功后返回 | |
| activity_id | No | 活动 ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / activity_id / descriptionAdded value: +"活动 ID"Input schema / properties / order_id / descriptionAdded value: +"订单号，报名成功后返回"Input schema / properties / phone / descriptionAdded value: +"付款人手机号"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that payment is WeChat Pay and that links have an expiry, which is valuable. It does not say whether repeated calls mint new links, what happens if the order/activity+phone lookup fails, or whether the link is one-time use.
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?
Front-loaded summary sentence, then a one-line usage sentence, then Args and Returns. No filler, and structure matches a conventional docstring that is easy to scan.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the Args/Returns here still summarize them. For a 3-param, all-optional payment-link tool with no annotations, what's missing is failure/edge behavior (order not found, expired order), which keeps it from a 5.
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%, but the Args block adds real meaning beyond the schema: it declares the precedence relationship (order_id first, fall back to activity_id + phone) and the provenance of order_id from register_event. That is genuinely useful routing information.
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 first line names a concrete verb+resource: generate a payment link and QR code for an event registration. This clearly tells an agent what the tool produces and is distinguishable from sibling create_activity/register_event calls. It stops short of naming which sibling it complements, so it does not earn a 5.
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 says to call this after registration to obtain the payment link, and the Args section states order_id is preferred and comes from the register_event result. That is clear usage context, but no explicit when-not call or distractor sibling (e.g., generate_urllink) is mentioned.
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.