safefy_payment_api_requestSend authenticated requests to any Safefy payment API endpoint, including PIX, withdrawals, customers, and transactions, when no dedicated tool exists.
Executa uma chamada real para qualquer rota da API de pagamentos. Use quando nao houver tool dedicada.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| path | Yes | Caminho da rota. Ex: /v1/transactions | |
| query | No | ||
| method | No | GET | |
| requireAuth | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / properties / path / minLengthRemoved value: -1Input schema / properties / path / patternAdded value: +"^\\/v1\\/[A-Za-z0-9._~\\-\\/]*$"Input schema / properties / query / additionalProperties / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / query / additionalProperties / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number",
+ "boolean",
+ "null"
+]v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent, side-effecting, open-world call. The description adds that the call is 'real' (as opposed to the simulate_* siblings), which is genuinely useful, but it omits that method=POST/PATCH mutate state and that requireAuth defaults to true.
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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action and the routing rule each stated once and front-loaded. Nothing to trim.
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 generic escape hatch that can issue arbitrary GET/POST/PATCH requests with an arbitrary body against any route, the description is far too thin: no auth requirement, no rate-limit or error behavior, no consequence of a malformed body, and no output format. Annotations cover only the safety profile, not these details.
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?
Only 20% schema description coverage across 5 parameters (path, body, query, method, requireAuth). The description supplies no parameter meaning at all — no mention of HTTP method semantics, the /v1/ path constraint, the free-form body, or what requireAuth does — so the agent must infer everything for a mutation-capable call.
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?
States a concrete verb and scope: it executes a real HTTP call against any route of the payments API. The word 'qualquer rota' plus 'real' distinguishes it from the many dedicated and simulate_* siblings, though it never names which sibling family it substitutes for.
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?
'Use quando nao houver tool dedicada' gives an explicit selection rule against the 27 sibling tools — this is the fallback/escalation tool. It stops short of naming concrete cases or exclusions (e.g. never use for /authenticate or credential configuration).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.