Reads durable order placement state for a cart and checks payment status when an order UUID exists. Use it to confirm pending or unknown outcomes before retrying, so you never resubmit that cart.
Read durable placement state for a cart. If submission returned an order UUID, also query payment status. pending/unknown does not mean failed; never resubmit that cart.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cart_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real semantics: the state is 'durable', pending/unknown is explicitly not failure, and it warns against resubmission. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though return shape/pagination are not addressed.
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?
Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the safety warning last. No filler, every clause carries instruction.
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 low-complexity read tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, this is nearly complete: it explains purpose, workflow timing, and the meaning of ambiguous states. The only gap is that the set of possible state values and the response shape are never described, with no output schema to fill in.
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 coverage is 0% and the single cart_id parameter is documented only implicitly ('for a cart'), with no format, source, or constraint details beyond the pattern in the schema. As a basic identifier it is largely self-explanatory, so this lands at an adequate-but-shallow 3 rather than being deficient.
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?
Gives a specific verb+resource: it reads the durable placement state for a cart, which an agent can distinguish from get_cart (contents) and get_order_status (consumer order tracking). It does not explicitly name a sibling it replaces or complements, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
Provides clear situational guidance: use it after submission, and if an order UUID came back, also check payment status. Adds a strong negative rule ('pending/unknown does not mean failed; never resubmit that cart'). It never explicitly routes to or away from named alternatives like get_order_payment_status, so it is context without formal alternative selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.