safefy_payment_start_payment_linkStart a payment link charge by specifying the link token and payment method (PIX or boleto). Optionally provide buyer name, email, and phone.
Inicia cobrança de payment link via /v1/payment-links/{token}/start.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| method | Yes | ||
| buyerName | No | ||
| buyerEmail | No | ||
| buyerPhone | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / properties / buyerEmail / patternPrevious value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path: it doesn't say what state change occurs, whether it consumes the link, what the buyer fields do, or what a repeated call produces.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing required detail rather than being tight-but-complete.
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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with 5 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell from this text what starting a link does, what it returns, or how the optional buyer fields affect the charge.
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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely doesn't. Only the {token} in the URL template hints at the token parameter; method (pix/boleto), buyerName, buyerEmail, and buyerPhone get no explanation.
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 specific verb and resource ('Inicia cobrança de payment link') plus the underlying REST path, so the agent knows this triggers a payment link charge rather than reading one. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_payment_link_status, but the name and verb make the intent unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus get_payment_link, get_payment_link_status, or create_transaction. No prerequisites (does the link need to exist? does it need to be unstarted?) or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.