ashar_get_payinRetrieves a single deposit's details by payin_id, returning live status plus its fee record so you can confirm payment state and costs.
Get details of a single deposit by its payin_id.
Args:
payin_id (string): the deposit id
Returns live status (queries BlindPay when possible) plus the fee record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payin_id | Yes | Deposit id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by noting that it returns live status and queries BlindPay when possible, plus the fee record.
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 short and front-loads the core action before listing the parameter and return behavior. The Args section duplicates schema information, but overall it remains efficiently structured.
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 one-parameter lookup tool, the description covers purpose, the required id, and a high-level return summary including live status and fee record. Given the rich annotations and complete input schema, this is largely sufficient, though return details are not fully described.
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 has 100% description coverage for the single payin_id parameter. The description repeats that it is the deposit id but adds no format, source, or lookup semantics beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: getting details of a single deposit by payin_id. It implicitly distinguishes from list_payins by specifying a single deposit, but does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.
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?
Usage is implied by 'by its payin_id' and 'single deposit,' suggesting it is used when a specific deposit id is known. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_payins or other payin-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.