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 | ||
| order_id | No | ||
| activity_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns a JSON string with payment link, QR code URL, payment method, and validity period, but does not mention any side effects (e.g., whether it marks the order as pending payment, creates a payment record, or if it is idempotent). It also doesn't discuss failure behavior (e.g., order not found) or permissions. This is a moderate disclosure but lacks depth expected for a tool without annotation support.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a usage note, an Args block, and a Returns block. It is front-loaded with the primary function and each section provides necessary information without fluff. It could be slightly more concise in the Args section (e.g., combining activity_id and phone), but overall it is efficient and 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?
Given 3 parameters, no required fields, zero schema coverage, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential calling context: when to call, parameter selection logic, and return format. It lacks explicit error handling or edge-case guidance (e.g., what happens if no order is found), but for a payment link generator, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The mention of obtaining order_id from register_event is a valuable cross-tool hint.
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 description coverage is 0% (parameters have only default '' and no descriptions). The description compensates by explaining each parameter: order_id (priority, from register_event), activity_id (used with phone), and phone (used with activity_id). It also explains the priority logic and fallback, which adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema. This is strong compensation for the coverage gap.
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 a specific verb and resource: '生成活动报名的支付链接和二维码' (generate payment link and QR code for event registration). It explains the purpose (obtain payment link after registration) and distinguishes itself from siblings like register_event (which creates the order) and generate_urllink (likely generic link generation). This is not a tautology and provides clear differentiation.
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 explicitly states when to use: '报名后通过此工具获取支付链接' (after registration, use this tool to obtain the payment link). It also gives parameter precedence (order_id first, fallback to activity_id+phone) and directs the agent to get order_id from register_event results. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, though the sibling list and purpose make the context clear. This is solid but not exhaustive.
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.