OrcaRail MCP
OfficialServer Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear separation between products, prices, payment intents, subscriptions, rates, and hosted pay slugs. Even the pay.* tools are uniquely scoped to slug-based lookups, distinct from ID-based payment intent operations. The payment intent lifecycle is well-differentiated across create, confirm, and complete.
Naming Consistency4/5Tool names generally follow a resource.action pattern (e.g., products.list, payment_intents.cancel). However, there are minor deviations: 'retrieve' vs. 'get' (payment_intents.retrieve vs. pay.get_by_slug), and 'deactivate' instead of 'delete' for prices. The dot-separated snake_case convention is consistent overall.
Tool Count3/5At 25 tools, the server sits at the upper boundary of what feels heavy for a single integrated payment platform. The coverage is broad, but the count is justified by multiple distinct domains (products, prices, payment intents, subscriptions, rates, pay slugs). Still, it is borderline enough to warrant a middle score.
Completeness4/5The tool set provides strong lifecycle coverage for products, prices, payment intents, and subscriptions. A notable gap is the lack of a 'subscriptions.pause' tool despite having 'subscriptions.resume', and prices lack a dedicated retrieve-by-ID action. These are minor gaps that an agent could work around using list operations.
Average 3.2/5 across 25 of 25 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a catalog product', restating the tool's purpose without revealing side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or any additional behavior beyond creation. This is akin to the 'Process' example with no useful information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise in length but severely under-specified. It does not earn its place because it conveys no more than the tool name. Concise writing should still provide substantive value; this is an example of under-specification rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is wholly inadequate. It provides no information about return values, side effects, or how to construct a valid request. The agent cannot meaningfully invoke this tool correctly based solely on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 13 parameters and schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description mentions none of them. It does not explain what parameters are needed, their format, or their defaults. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the agent completely uninformed about parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a catalog product' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (catalog product). It distinguishes from sibling tools like products.update and products.delete by verb, and from payment_intents.create by resource type, though it lacks explicit differentiation such as scope or alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for new products, while products.update is for existing ones, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for creation. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it says nothing about effects, reversibility, idempotency, or potential side effects. It merely restates the action, providing no additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not warrant the expected structure for handling 17 parameters, and the single sentence is essentially a restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (17 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), this description is grossly incomplete. It provides no information about return values, parameter behavior, or operational context, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 6% (only 'id' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, failing to compensate for the undocumented fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a subscription' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (subscription), which is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like subscriptions.cancel or subscriptions.resume, so it misses the highest score for sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as subscriptions.cancel or subscriptions.resume. The description is purely definitional and offers no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'update', which implies mutation, but does not mention partial vs. full replacement, required permissions, side effects on related objects, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is efficient, but it is too sparse to be considered well-structured. It conveys the basic purpose but omits essential context. It is not verbose, but under-specification is a flaw.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without information about update semantics, field constraints, or expected outcomes. The description is far too minimal for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 7% (only product_id is described). The description adds no information about any of the 14 parameters, leaving the other 13 parameters without semantics. The tool must compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (update) and resource (catalog product), distinguishing it from sibling tools like products.create, products.list, and products.delete. It is concise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no contextual cues. It merely restates the tool's purpose without explaining scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, required scoping, or potential side effects. The description is too sparse to convey the operational profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool, though it would benefit from a few more details about parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters, the description is not complete enough to support correct tool invocation. It requires additional elaboration on parameter usage and expected response to be minimally viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0% and four parameters (limit, active, recurring, organization_id), the description should explain their meaning and relationships. It mentions 'organization' but does not clarify any parameters, leaving the agent to guess at their semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'catalog prices', distinguishing it from price mutation tools like prices.create/update/deactivate. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from products.list or other similar list tools, so it falls short of the highest clarity standard.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, filtering use cases, or when to prefer this over other list tools. The lack of any usage directions leaves the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update' without revealing whether it's a partial or full update, reversibility, permission needs, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity sacrifices useful detail that could enhance usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 13 parameters and no annotations or output schema, this description is drastically incomplete. It provides almost no context for how the tool behaves, what it returns, or when to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 13 parameters but only 8% are described (price_id). The description adds no parameter meaning and fails to clarify ambiguous fields like token_id, network_id, or transfer_lookup_key.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a catalog price' clearly states the action (update) and resource (catalog price). It distinguishes from create and deactivate by being a general mutation, though it doesn't enumerate specific updatable fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like prices.deactivate or prices.create. It does not mention typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says only 'Deactivate a catalog price' without explaining effects (e.g., irreversible, hides from listings, impacts existing subscriptions), permissions required, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no redundant words, making it highly concise. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, preventing a higher score for structure since it lacks any supporting context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only partially documented parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not mention side effects, return values, or any prerequisites. The sibling set includes read-only and mutation tools, but this description does not provide enough context to guide safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only price_id has a description). The tool description adds no parameter semantics, leaving organization_id completely undocumented and not clarifying the format or purpose of price_id beyond its schema description. Since coverage is not high, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Deactivate') and resource ('catalog price'), clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like prices.create and prices.update by the deactivation intent, though it does not elaborate on scope or nuances.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use prices.update for reactivation or whether deactivation is only for temporary states. The description is purely a statement of action with no contextual 'when' or 'when not'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Cancel a Payment Intent' but does not disclose what happens to the intent (e.g., status changes, reversibility), whether cancellation can fail, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it lacks explanatory detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot anticipate side effects, error conditions, or return format from the information provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter 'id' described as 'Payment Intent ID'. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cancel') and the resource ('Payment Intent'), which is specific and differentiates it from siblings like create/retrieve/update. However, it adds no extra scope or context beyond the tool name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as subscriptions.cancel or payment_intents.update. There is no mention of prerequisites, cancellation reasons, or conditions under which cancellation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions 'one-time or recurring', which relates to the recurring parameter rather than side effects, side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond what the tool name implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, but at only seven words it is under-specified for a tool with 13 parameters. It is not structured in a way that improves scannability or comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain inputs, outputs, required parameters, or side effects, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 15%, and the description adds minimal meaning. It hints at the recurring parameter by stating 'one-time or recurring', but does not explain key parameters like token_id, network_id, currency, or product_data, leaving most of the 13 parameters semantically undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Create), the resource (catalog price), and differentiates from siblings by specifying 'one-time or recurring'. It is distinct from other price-related tools like prices.update and prices.deactivate, and from products.create.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the delete is permanent, whether it cascades, requires special permissions, or any side effects. 'Delete' only states the basic action, leaving critical behavioral traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and clear with no redundancy, but it is under-specified. It does not include essential context such as irreversibility or parameter roles, so it is not appropriately sized for a deletion operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description must fully inform the agent. A simple 'Delete a catalog product' does not provide enough context about important aspects like permanence, required permissions, or what happens to related data. This is insufficient for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50% (product_id has a description, organization_id does not). The tool description adds no parameter meaning, not explaining how product_id or organization_id are used or whether organization_id is required for mutation. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'catalog product', making the action explicit. It also differentiates from sibling tools like products.create and products.update, which are distinct operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions under which deletion is appropriate. The single-sentence description lacks any context about recommended usage or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. 'Cancel a subscription (immediate)' does not state whether refunds occur, if it is reversible, or what happens to the subscription lifecycle. The only added behavioral hint is 'immediate,' which is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and front-loaded, but it largely restates the tool name with 'Cancel a subscription' adding no new information beyond 'immediate.' It is concise but under-specified, not earning its place with insight.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is extremely sparse. It fails to explain the meaning of 'immediate' cancellation, what side effects occur, or what the return value is. The nested cancellation_details parameter is also left unexplained, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes 'id' as 'Subscription ID' (50% coverage), but 'cancellation_details' has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description adds no explanation that optional feedback or comment can be provided, leaving the agent guessing about the purpose of the nested object. With 50% coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('a subscription'), with the qualifier 'immediate' clarifying the timing. This clearly distinguishes it from payment-related cancel tools and the opposite 'subscriptions.resume' sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'immediate' implies a use case, but no exclusions or comparisons to subscriptions.update or subscriptions.resume are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states a timing precondition (before confirmation) but does not mention whether updates are partial or full, whether they are reversible, or what happens if attempted after confirmation. This is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it scannable and efficient. The sentence earns its place, though other dimensions suffer from under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this description is severely under-specified. It lacks parameter semantics, use-case examples, side-effect disclosures, and return-value expectations, making it inadequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 13 parameters but only 8% description coverage, so the description was expected to compensate. It mentions no parameters at all beyond the implicit Payment Intent, leaving fields like amount, currency, metadata, and payment_method_types completely unexplained. The description adds zero value for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Update') and the target resource ('a Payment Intent'), and adds a scoping conditional ('before confirmation') that differentiates it from sibling tools like confirm, complete, or cancel. It is a specific verb+resource+phase statement, not a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'before confirmation' provides clear temporal context about when the tool is applicable, implying it is not for use after confirmation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use payment_intents.confirm to finalize'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that products are listed, but does not mention pagination, filtering, permissions, or return format, leaving the agent without critical operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, earning its place by conveying the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks information about output format, pagination, or how it differs from other list tools in the sibling group. Given the absence of an output schema, a more complete description would be expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the only parameter (organization_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'catalog products' and scope 'for an organization', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like products.create, products.update, and products.delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as prices.list or subscriptions.list. The description provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It mentions pagination and filters, but does not disclose defaults (e.g., whether all statuses are returned) or response shape. The 'list' verb implies read-only, but more behavioral context is expected for a tool with zero annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently covers the core action and key capabilities.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It leaves critical gaps around filter semantics, pagination mechanics, and response details, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage in the description, the burden is on the description to explain parameters. It only mentions 'optional filters' without naming or explaining any of the 8 parameters (limit, status, created, etc.). The schema property names provide some hints, but the description fails to add meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('subscriptions'), and adds relevant scope ('optional filters and cursor pagination'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like products.list and subscriptions.create.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: use this to list subscriptions. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like subscriptions.list_payment_links or mention any exclusions (e.g., default status behavior).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only states the creation action and parameter groupings. It fails to disclose side effects, authorization requirements, whether the payment is immediately charged, return values, or failure modes—similar to a bare 'Update' description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence earns its place by stating the purpose and the two parameter modes. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 12 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits context about the required return_url, post-creation behavior, response shape, error handling, and the remaining parameter semantics, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, with six parameters lacking descriptions. The description adds valuable grouping semantics—'price_id (catalog) or amount+currency+tokenId+networkId'—which is not present in the schema. However, it does not address the six undocumented parameters (e.g., cancel_url, expires_at, metadata) and thus only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Create a Payment Intent', a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling lifecycle tools like payment_intents.retrieve/update/confirm/cancel. It also clarifies the two primary parameter modes (price_id vs amount+currency+tokenId+networkId), which makes the purpose explicit and unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool by naming the action and providing two alternative payment configurations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus sibling tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is contextually clear but lacks direct comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the quote is indicative, includes fees, expires, or relies on live rates. For a financial tool, this lack of detail is a significant gap, exposing the agent to uncertainty about the quote's characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise with no filler words, making it easy to parse and remember.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the quote contains (e.g., conversion rate, fees, expiration) but does not. It also does not mention any error conditions or response format. This leaves the agent without essential information about the tool's return value and potential issues.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (amount and currency), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds the 'fiat-to-USDC' context, but this does not elaborate on parameter syntax or edge cases beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb (Get), resource (fiat-to-USDC quote), and context (amount in a source currency). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rates.list_currencies, which lists currencies rather than quoting conversions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for when a fiat-to-USDC quote is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no mention of sibling tools such as rates.list_currencies, leaving the usage context clear but not fully differentiated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a subscription' and the pricing alternatives, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it charges immediately, sends a payment link, or returns a subscription object), auth requirements, or return format. This is minimal beyond what the tool name implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action 'Create a subscription' followed by a compact, high-value clarification of pricing modes. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (22 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the one-sentence description is severely inadequate. It does not explain return values, the required 'description' field, or the meaning of many optional parameters. The pricing-mode guidance is helpful but far from complete for an agent to use the tool correctly in diverse scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantic context by specifying the mutually exclusive pricing modes (price_id OR amount+currency+token_id+network_id+interval), which is not evident from the schema alone. However, with 0% schema coverage and 22 parameters, it fails to explain many other parameters (e.g., metadata, cancel_at, trial_end) and does not mention that 'description' is a required field. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not sufficiently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a subscription' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscriptions.list, update, cancel, etc. The pricing mode alternatives further clarify the tool's core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives parameter-selection guidance ('Provide either price_id or amount+currency+token_id+network_id+interval') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like subscriptions.update or products.create. The usage context is implied by the name 'create' rather than explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Cancel a payment intent' without detailing prerequisites (e.g., the slug must be valid, the intent must be cancellable), reversibility, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes meaning. This is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose adequately. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits what the caller can expect as a return value or error behavior. It also does not clarify the relationship with the sibling payment_intents.cancel, leaving completeness slightly lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'slug' with its description 'Pay slug from the payment link URL'. The tool description repeats the concept ('hosted pay slug') without adding additional semantics like format, source, or validation nuances, so it meets the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cancel'), the resource ('payment intent'), and the method ('by hosted pay slug'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool payment_intents.cancel, which presumably cancels by payment intent ID, making the purpose clear and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by hosted pay slug' implies the tool should be used when you have a hosted pay slug rather than a payment intent ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as payment_intents.cancel or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, so usage guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of describing safety and behavior. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or response format. The addition of 'cycle invoices' provides some context beyond the name, but the description is thin on behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('List payment links') and provides a clarifying parenthetical. Every word contributes value and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains neither the pagination parameters nor the shape of the returned payment links. While 'cycle invoices' adds some context, the description omits essential information about response structure and usage context, leaving a user uncertain about what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'id' has a description). The description does not mention or explain any of the parameters, including the pagination-related 'limit', 'ending_before', and 'starting_after'. It adds zero value beyond what the schema already provides, and fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'payment links' and scopes it to a subscription. It adds the clarification '(cycle invoices)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscriptions.list that list subscriptions themselves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you need to list payment links associated with a subscription. It provides a clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. No alternatives are named, but the resource 'payment links for a subscription' differentiates it from other list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core state change but omits potential side effects, prerequisites, or failure conditions (e.g., whether a payment method is required, whether the billing cycle resets, or if it is idempotent). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is immediately understandable. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple signature (one parameter, no output schema). The description covers the core action but lacks guidance on edge cases or return behavior. Given the simplicity, it is minimally viable but leaves room for more context about what the agent should expect after invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema describes the single parameter 'id' as 'Subscription ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Resume') and clearly identifies the resource ('a paused subscription'). It differentiates from sibling tools like subscriptions.cancel, subscriptions.create, and subscriptions.update by specifying a distinct state transition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when a subscription is paused), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools would be more appropriate in other scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says "Retrieve" which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, describe the response format, or mention error conditions (e.g., not found). The description lacks transparency about side effects and return value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words or filler. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it extremely concise and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description is adequate but not thorough. It omits any mention of what the response contains (e.g., full subscription object), error handling, or specific use-case context, which would be useful for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the sole parameter 'id' with a description of 'Subscription ID', giving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description "Retrieve a subscription by ID" uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like subscriptions.list (which lists multiple) and subscriptions.create/update/cancel (which mutate). It precisely communicates the tool's function and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a specific subscription ID and need its details, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over subscriptions.list or other alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve' without mentioning return format, error behavior, authentication needs, or side effects. The description adds no transparency beyond what the tool name already implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, direct sentence that includes the action, resource, and key parameter with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter retrieve operation, the description is adequate: it names the resource and identifier. However, without an output schema, it could clarify what is returned, but the verb 'Retrieve' reasonably implies the full Payment Intent object.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents the single 'id' parameter with a clear description ('Payment Intent ID'). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so with 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Retrieve') on a specific resource ('Payment Intent') with the key parameter ('by ID'). It distinguishes this read operation from sibling tools like payment_intents.create, update, cancel, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for fetching an existing Payment Intent when you have its ID, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Sibling tools suggest the CRUD context, so usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'mark as processing' without mentioning side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and trigger. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the basic what and when. However, without annotations, it lacks important context about state transitions, idempotency, or failure modes, leaving a clear gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with a clear 'Payment Intent ID' field. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Mark a Payment Intent as processing' with a specific trigger ('after the customer returns to your success URL'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, retrieve, update, confirm, and cancel.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear context for when to use the tool (after the customer returns to the success URL), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It gives enough implicit differentiation from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the confirm action and the redirect URL output, but omits side effects such as whether the payment is actually captured, idempotency behavior, or security requirements. Some traits are implied but not fully specified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately conveys the key output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the description plus schema covers the main action and return value. However, with no annotations and no output schema, missing details such as error cases, idempotency, or whether confirmation is reversible leave some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Confirm a Payment Intent') and the specific outcome ('get the hosted pay redirect URL'). This verb+resource+output structure distinguishes it from siblings like payment_intents.complete or payment_intents.cancel.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is implied: use this when you want to confirm and then redirect to a hosted payment page. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like payment_intents.complete or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the action as listing, but it does not disclose whether both active and inactive currencies are returned by default or how the 'active' parameter affects results. For a simple read-only operation, this is minimally transparent but leaves some behavioral nuances unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence without any fluff or repetition. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., an array of currency codes or objects) or default active/inactive behavior, which could be considered minor gaps for an agent invoking the tool for the first time.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the only parameter 'active' with a clear description, and the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List supported fiat currencies' clearly states a specific action (list) and resource (fiat currencies), distinguishing it from the sibling tool rates.get_fiat_quote, which is for obtaining quotes rather than listing currencies. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this tool when you need a list of supported fiat currencies. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mentions alternatives such as rates.get_fiat_quote. The name and context strongly suggest the intended use, so it is adequate but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return shape, error behavior, or any potential side effects. It is adequate but lacks richer behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and scoping parameter. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core purpose and parameter. It could hint at what 'details' include, but for a basic get-by-slug operation, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'slug' parameter fully described as 'Pay slug from the payment link URL'. The tool description adds the phrase 'hosted pay slug', which is slightly more specific but does not introduce new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('pay / payment intent details') scoped by 'hosted pay slug', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like payment_intents.retrieve that likely operate on different identifiers. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by hosted pay slug' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when you have a slug from a payment link. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, the context is straightforward and leaves no doubt about the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/OrcaRail/mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server