confirm_paymentConfirms a held payment for an order so the buyer receives access and the sales fee is charged; run only after creator approval because it cannot be undone.
Confirm that a payment on hold belongs to this order: the consumer gets what they bought and the sales fee is charged. Only do this after the creator has said so; it can't be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orderId | Yes | The order id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With only destructiveHint available in annotations, the description adds critical context: the action is irreversible, it fulfills the consumer's purchase, and it charges the sales fee. These side effects and the approval prerequisite go well beyond the structured annotation.
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?
The description is two tight sentences: the first states the action and consequence, the second gives the prerequisite and irreversibility warning. It is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral traits: what it does, the consumer and fee consequences, the creator-approval prerequisite, and irreversibility. Nothing critical is missing.
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 the single orderId parameter is documented in the schema. The description references 'this order' but adds no format or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Confirm that a payment on hold belongs to this order') and explains the outcome, making the action clear. It does not explicitly name the opposing sibling tool reject_payment, so it falls short of full sibling 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?
It gives a clear precondition ('Only do this after the creator has said so') and a strong warning ('it can't be undone'). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use reject_payment instead, leaving alternative selection partly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.