Validates a synthetic Kount Payments Fraud v2 order payload against local specification and prose constraints offline, returning validation status for integration testing.
Validate a synthetic v2 order against the local spec and sourced prose constraints. valid:null means unavailable or indeterminate. No network calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so 'No network calls' adds little beyond openWorldHint=false. The genuinely additive disclosure is the tri-state result semantics ('valid:null means unavailable or indeterminate'), which matters because there is no output schema, but nothing is said about what a failure result contains or how strict the spec check is.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope statement leads. The final fragment about null semantics is terse but earns its place, and 'sourced prose constraints' is slightly jargon-heavy for the value it conveys.
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 single free-form payload parameter with no output schema, the description covers intent and the null case but omits how errors/invalid results are reported and what the local spec actually enforces. Adequate to call the tool, not enough to predict its responses.
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% and the schema is a free-form object with arbitrary additional properties, so the description must carry the burden. It only says the payload is a 'synthetic v2 order' — no field names, required keys, version marker expectations, or examples are given, leaving the agent to guess the shape.
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 gives a specific verb (validate) and resource (a synthetic v2 order payload) plus the basis of validation (local spec and sourced prose constraints). It is clearly distinct from siblings like generate_order_example or check_integration_readiness, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'synthetic v2 order' signals sandbox/pre-flight validation, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_api_schema or check_integration_readiness, and no stated prerequisites or when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.