Calculate Stripe transaction fees for domestic or international payments using fixed rates to determine your net revenue after processing costs.
Stripe domestic 2.9%+$0.30, international 3.9%+$0.30.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| amount | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does reveal the fee rates, but it does not state what the tool returns (fee amount vs. total charge), what currency assumptions exist, or how the optional 'type' parameter is handled. This leaves core behavior ambiguous.
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?
A single sentence with no filler; it front-loads the fee structure and wastes no words.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the return value and parameter semantics. It provides only the rate table, so an agent cannot confidently know what the tool produces or how optional parameters behave.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description only indirectly maps 'domestic' and 'international' to rates. It does not define 'amount' units, explain that 'type' is optional, or specify a default; the connection between parameters and the formula is left implicit.
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 communicates the tool's domain and rates: it applies 2.9%+$0.30 for domestic Stripe transactions and 3.9%+$0.30 for international ones. It clearly distinguishes from sibling calculators by naming Stripe, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'calculates'.
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?
There is no statement about when to use this tool versus the many sibling calculators. The only usage signal is the implied Stripe-specific scope; no alternatives, exclusions, or conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.