Check if a quote's payment is completed by polling its status, synced with Stripe. Use this to confirm checkout success or detect pending payments.
Poll quote payment status (syncs with Stripe).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quote_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool interacts with Stripe and is poll-like, but it does not state whether it is read-only, whether it triggers a sync or mutates state, what response it returns, or any side effects. The vague 'syncs with Stripe' raises more questions than it answers.
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 a single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the Stripe integration parenthetically appended. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant boilerplate.
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 one-parameter polling tool, the description is minimal but does not explain what status values to expect, how to interpret the result, whether the call is idempotent, or when a quote becomes pollable. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without enough context to reliably act on the tool's response.
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 description does not explain quote_id beyond the generic word 'quote.' It offers no format, source, or example for the quote_id, forcing the agent to infer from the parameter name and tool name alone. Since the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, this is a notable gap.
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 specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('quote payment status'), clearly indicating a status-checking operation. It is distinguishable from sibling checkout tools like agent_checkout_pay and agent_checkout_fulfill by focusing on status, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 phrase 'Poll quote payment status' implies the tool is used to check whether a payment for a quote has completed, and 'syncs with Stripe' gives useful external context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus other checkout steps, when not to use it, or what conditions should trigger polling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.