get_payment_orderRetrieve an instructed payment or standing order by its paymentOrderUid to view its details and status.
Gets a payment order (an instructed payment or standing order) by its paymentOrderUid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paymentOrderUid | Yes | Payment order UID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only definitional context about what a payment order is, not beyond-schema behavioral detail such as error behavior for unknown UIDs or data freshness.
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?
One compact sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter lookup, though the parenthetical is the only content beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple by-UID lookup with full annotation coverage, 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any routing hint relative to get_standing_order, which is the main gap an agent would face.
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 there is a single required parameter whose UUID pattern is enforced in the schema. The description only restates the identifier, adding no format or sourcing detail 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Gets) and resource (payment order), and usefully clarifies that a payment order may be an instructed payment or a standing order. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_standing_order or list_payment_order_payments, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives (get_standing_order, list_payment_order_payments are nearby siblings). Usage is only implied by the name and the required UID parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.