Retrieve saved payment methods for your client account with a vendor. Returns an empty array when none are saved.
List saved payment methods for your client account with a vendor. Empty array if none are saved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| origin | No | Portal origin (e.g. https://<vendor>.hbportal.co). Optional when only one session is active. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds a useful behavioral detail: 'Empty array if none are saved.' Beyond that, it does not disclose return format, authentication requirements, or vendor-context behavior, but the annotation lowers the burden.
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 one concise sentence that states the action and resource, plus a useful edge-case note about the empty array. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and one important return behavior. It could mention what the array contains, but the overall context is sufficiently 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% for the single optional 'origin' parameter, and the schema already explains its purpose. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'List saved payment methods for your client account with a vendor.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_payments by specifying 'saved payment methods' rather than payments or transactions, so an agent can identify this tool's scope.
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?
The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_payments, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is clear, but no explicit guidance is given for choosing among related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.