Lists authorised payment operations with exact parameter ranges, so an agent can discover allowed actions and call the correct one first.
List the payment operations the operator has authorised, with the exact parameter ranges each one accepts. Call this first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are permission-filtered to authorised operations and include each operation's accepted parameter ranges — key behavior for a discovery call. It does not cover pagination, return shape/identifiers, or failure modes for unauthorised operators.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with what it lists and what comes back, then the ordering instruction. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must convey returns; it does so at a high level (operations plus their parameter ranges), which is the critical information for a discovery tool feeding run_payment_operation. The exact return structure (operation identifiers, value formats, ordering) remains unstated.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The mention of "parameter ranges" refers to the returned data, not inputs, so it does not mislead about the input surface.
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 and resource ("List the payment operations") and narrows scope to those "the operator has authorised." It also describes what the listing contains (accepted parameter ranges), which distinguishes it from the mutating sibling run_payment_operation, though that sibling is never named.
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?
"Call this first" gives an explicit ordering directive relative to the execution tool, which is real usage guidance. It stops short of naming run_payment_operation or stating what to do when the list is empty / an operation is not authorised.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.