Retrieve payout details by providing the unique payout UUID. Get specific payout information for tutoring transactions.
Get Payout
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payout_id | Yes | Payout UUID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| paid_at | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| is_group | No | ||
| tutor_id | No | ||
| created_at | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| amount_cents | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses no behavioral context beyond the word 'Get', and the annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. No additional context about authentication, error behavior, or side effects is provided, so the description adds no value beyond the structured annotations.
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 words that merely repeat the tool name are under-specified rather than productively concise. Every token is redundant, and the description does not earn its place by adding information.
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 tool is simple: one required UUID parameter, a read-only/idempotent/non-destructive annotation set, and an output schema are all present. However, the description itself leaves usage context and the relationship to list_payouts implicit, making it adequate only because the surrounding structured data compensates.
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%, with payout_id fully described as a required string 'Payout UUID'. The description itself adds no parameter insight, but the schema already carries the full burden, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Get Payout' is a verbatim restatement of both the tool name and title, making it a tautology rather than an explanation. It names a verb and resource but adds no distinguishing detail to separate it from sibling get_* tools such as get_payment or get_invoice.
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 about when to use this tool versus list_payouts or other payout-related tools. An agent must infer the intended usage entirely from the name and input schema, which is insufficient for confident selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.