get_payment_historyRetrieve a payment's status change history, ordered oldest first, with timestamps for each change, to track how and when its state evolved.
The status changes of one payment, oldest first, with when each happened.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The payment id, as create_payment_link or list_payments returned it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying chronological ordering ('oldest first') and that each event includes its timestamp. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or authorization requirements, so it adds moderate but not rich behavioral detail.
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 a single efficient sentence with zero waste. The key information, status changes of one payment, oldest first, with timestamps, is front-loaded.
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 read-only history tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented id schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned and the ordering, though it could mention whether all history is returned or whether pagination applies.
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%, and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its format and where it comes from. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 resource and scope: the status-change history of one payment, ordered oldest first with timestamps. This clearly distinguishes it from get_payment, which likely returns current payment details, and from list_payments, which returns multiple payments.
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 the purpose: an agent can infer this is the tool for viewing status transitions of a single payment. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus get_payment or list_payments, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.