List available payment processors and their capabilities. Returns Yoco (card, immediate) and Ozow (instant EFT via South African bank account). Call when the customer asks 'how can I pay?' or before presenting options. The result informs the payment_method field in create_checkout and complete_checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_total_zar | No | Optional. For future per-handler limit filtering. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation ('List... Returns...'), specifies the exact return contents (Yoco and Ozow with capabilities), and describes the downstream usage. It does not explicitly state side effects or auth requirements, but for a simple getter, the behavioral transparency is strong.
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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second details the return contents, and the third gives usage triggers and downstream context. It is front-loaded with the key information and has zero waste.
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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (the two processors and their capabilities) and how the result is used (to inform the payment_method field). It could be slightly more complete by mentioning possible edge cases (e.g., no payment methods available) but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 covers the single optional parameter with a clear description ('Optional. For future per-handler limit filtering.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The main description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.
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 begins with 'List available payment processors and their capabilities,' which clearly states the tool's action and resource. It goes further to name specific processors (Yoco and Ozow) and their capabilities, making it unmistakable what this tool does and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_checkout or create_checkout.
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?
Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call when the customer asks ‘how can I pay?’ or before presenting options.' It also explains the result is used to inform the payment_method field in create_checkout and complete_checkout, giving concrete context on when and why to invoke this tool.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the presence of three search tools (search_catalog, search_products, lookup_catalog) and legacy tools (create_order, submit_enquiry) creates minor overlap. Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent might initially confuse them.
All 26 tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., cancel_cart, configure_product). No mixed cases or irregular verbs are present.
26 tools is slightly high for a blind shop, but the domain requires many operations (search, pricing, cart, checkout, recommendations, etc.). Some legacy tools could be removed, but the count is still reasonable.
The tool surface covers the full customer journey from product discovery (search, recommendations) to purchase (cart, checkout, payment) and post-purchase (orders, swatches, price match, delivery estimates). No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.