Check a SIBS payment's status by providing the transaction ID. Returns payment state, amount, method, and timestamps for quick verification.
Get the status of a SIBS payment by transaction ID. Returns payment state, amount, method, and timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transactionId | Yes | SIBS transaction ID (returned when payment was created) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool returns payment state, amount, method, and timestamps, and the verb 'Get' implies no side effects. It does not cover behavior for invalid or missing transaction IDs, possible state values, or any authentication/error expectations.
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 tight, front-loaded sentences: the first states the action and required input, the second states the output fields. There is no filler, repetition of the tool name, or unnecessary detail.
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 single-parameter status lookup, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the required input and enumerates the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. It could add possible payment states or error scenarios, but those are not necessary for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 parameter is already described clearly as the SIBS transaction ID returned when the payment was created. The tool description's 'by transaction ID' matches the schema but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('status of a SIBS payment'), making it clear this is a read-only status lookup. It stands apart from the sibling tools, which perform payment creation, capture, refund, cancel, or reference generation, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.
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 phrase 'by transaction ID' implies the tool should be used after a payment has been created and the ID retrieved. The schema additionally notes that the transaction ID was returned at creation, reinforcing this context. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.