Create a checkout session for AgentaOS payments, optionally pre-filling buyer email, currency, and checkout description.
Create a checkout session
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Pre-populate buyer email | ||
| amount | Yes | Payment amount (e.g. 50.00) | |
| currency | No | Currency code (e.g. EUR, USD) | |
| description | No | Description shown on checkout page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare action. It does not say whether this mutates state, requires authentication or an API key, whether the session is reusable/expires, or what the caller receives back.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, stating the action immediately. It is arguably too terse for a payment tool, but it is structurally clean.
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 payment checkout-creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, a single four-word sentence is inadequate. The agent is not told what a checkout session is, what it returns (e.g. a checkout URL), or how it fits with the pay_get/pay_list siblings.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (email, amount, currency, description) with examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('checkout session'), so the agent understands the action. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from siblings like agenta_pay_get or agenta_pay_list, relying entirely on the tool name for 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the payment flow it initiates. The agent must infer usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.