wave_get_invoice_paymentRetrieves a single invoice payment by ID, returning account, method, currency, and processor details for reconciliation and payment tracking.
One invoice payment with account, method, currency details and processor info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Invoice payment ID | |
| businessId | No | Business ID; defaults to the one wave_get_context reports |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavior is the shape of the returned record (account, method, currency, processor), which is useful since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about not-found handling or scoping.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the most useful information (the returned record's contents) comes first. It is telegraphic rather than polished, but nothing is wasted.
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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description at least signals what fields come back, which partially compensates for the missing return definition. It still omits error behavior and any routing context relative to the many payment-related siblings, so it is only minimally complete.
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%, so both the required invoice payment id and the optional businessId default are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 identifies the resource (one invoice payment) and enumerates the data it carries (account, method, currency, processor info), so the intent is inferable. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit retrieval verb, and it does not distinguish this from nearby siblings such as wave_list_payments or wave_get_estimate_payment, leaving the agent to rely on the tool name.
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 at all: nothing says to call this when you have a payment ID, nor that wave_list_payments should be used to discover IDs first. No exclusions or alternatives are named despite a crowded sibling set of payment and invoice tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.