Skip to main content
Glama
bitnovo

MCP Bitnovo Pay

Official
by bitnovo

create_payment_link

Creates a payment link that allows customers to select their preferred cryptocurrency for payment. Share the returned URL to initiate payment.

Instructions

Create payment link/URL where customer chooses cryptocurrency. USE AS DEFAULT WHEN: User requests payment without specifying crypto. Customer clicks link and selects their preferred cryptocurrency from available options. RESULT: Returns a web_url that you share with your customer. EXAMPLES: "Payment for 50 euros", "Create payment", "Generate QR", "Payment link", "dame el qr para un pago de 24 euros". PREFERRED for all generic payment requests. NOTE: Customer can choose ANY available cryptocurrency in the gateway. IMPORTANT: Only provide url_ok and url_ko if user explicitly requests redirect URLs - DO NOT invent or assume redirect URLs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
amount_eurYesPayment amount in EUR (must be positive)
url_okNoSUCCESS redirect URL where customer returns after successful payment. ONLY provide if user explicitly requests redirect functionality. DO NOT use example.com or invent URLs.
url_koNoFAILURE redirect URL where customer returns after payment failure or cancellation. ONLY provide if user explicitly requests redirect functionality. DO NOT use example.com or invent URLs.
fiatNoISO 4217 currency code for the fiat amount (supports EUR, USD, and other major currencies)EUR
notesNoOptional payment description or reference
include_qrNoIf true, includes QR code for the web URL in the response (RECOMMENDED: always true for immediate use)
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the customer can choose any available cryptocurrency, the result is a web_url, and includes important behavioral notes about redirect URLs (only provide if explicitly requested) and QR code inclusion. Lacks details on payment expiry, fees, or authentication, but the core behavior is transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured. Key phrases like 'USE AS DEFAULT WHEN', 'RESULT', 'EXAMPLES', and 'IMPORTANT' front-load critical information. Every sentence contributes value, and the use of all caps for emphasis is effective without being excessive.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 6 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, usage, constraints, and examples. It explains that the response includes a web_url and optionally a QR code. However, it does not detail the exact response structure or list all fields, which would add completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing usage context for 'url_ok' and 'url_ko' (only provide if user requests) and a recommendation for 'include_qr' (always true for immediate use). This enhances the semantics without repeating schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a payment link/URL where the customer chooses cryptocurrency. It differentiates itself from siblings like 'create_payment_onchain' by specifying it is the default for generic payment requests without a specific crypto. Examples and 'PREFERRED' label reinforce this distinct role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'USE AS DEFAULT WHEN: User requests payment without specifying crypto.' It also lists example user requests that should trigger this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, though the sibling tool 'create_payment_onchain' implies the exclusion for cases where crypto is specified.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bitnovo/mcp-bitnovo-pay'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server