Retrieve a specific transaction's details by its unique ID from the PayGate API. Use this read-only tool to query transaction data directly for verification or analysis.
Get transaction by ID (rate limit: 100 requests per 1m) Read-only (GET /paygate/transactions/{id}).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It proactively discloses the rate limit (100 requests per 1m) and the read-only nature of the request, which are the most important operational behaviors. It does not cover 404/error handling, but the disclosed rate limit and safety profile go beyond a minimal mention.
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 sentence that conveys the operation, the rate limit, and the read-only nature, with zero filler. The critical operation is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.
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 GET without an output schema, the description covers the core contract: operation, rate limit, and idempotent safety. It stops short of documenting not-found behavior or authentication requirements, but these are common assumptions for such a read-only lookup and the tool's simplicity mitigates the omission.
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, so the description must add meaning to the single 'id' parameter. 'Get transaction by ID' explicitly maps the id parameter to a transaction identifier, which clarifies its role. For a single string parameter, this is sufficient semantic grounding.
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 opens with 'Get transaction by ID', a specific verb and resource that unambiguously identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from listTransactions (which lists multiple transactions) by focusing on a single ID lookup.
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?
The description gives clear context that this is a read-only single-transaction lookup, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over the sibling listTransactions or other listing tools. Usage is implied by the name and 'by ID' but no alternatives or exclusions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.