ifood_merchant_payment_methodsRetrieve the payment methods accepted by a restaurant using its merchant ID. Get a read-only summary of available payment options.
How a restaurant accepts payment. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| merchant_id | Yes | ||
| privacy_mode | No | ||
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description repeats 'Read-only', which is already expressed by readOnlyHint=true. It adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as how privacy_mode affects returned data, response formatting behavior, or any operational constraints.
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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy beyond the annotation repetition. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing substantive guidance.
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 tool with three parameters, including an unexplained privacy_mode enum and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It provides the basic domain concept but fails to address parameter behavior, output structure, or when it should be selected, leaving clear gaps.
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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention merchant_id, privacy_mode, or response_format at all, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from names and enums.
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 clearly identifies the resource: how a restaurant accepts payment, and 'Read-only' signals the operation type. It is clear enough for an agent to know what data the tool provides, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ifood_list_payment_methods.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions no use cases, prerequisites, or comparison to related tools such as ifood_list_payment_methods or ifood_set_payment_method.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.