Pays an existing locally created order only when no payment attempt exists; use it to complete eligible orders while other order states remain query-only.
Pay an existing locally CREATED order only if payment has never been attempted. All other states only query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | Yes | ||
| attempt_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by restricting payment to orders with no prior payment attempt and indicating that other states should only be queried.
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 two short sentences with the key precondition front-loaded. Every phrase contributes to the invocation decision, with no wasted text.
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?
The central state precondition is present, which is important for a destructive payment action. However, with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, the definition leaves account/attempt_id semantics and failure or return behavior undocumented.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain either required parameter. The word 'payment attempt' loosely hints that attempt_id relates to a payment attempt, but account is entirely unexplained.
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: pay an existing locally CREATED order. It also adds a clear state constraint, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as checkout_submit or order_status, so sibling differentiation is only implied.
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?
It gives explicit usage conditions: the order must already exist locally, and payment must never have been attempted. It also states the negative case ('All other states only query'), though it does not name the alternative query tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.