agent-verifier-mcp

refund

Reverse a settled payment to restore budget. Provide hold ID and amount in cents for full or partial refunds.

Instructions

Refund a settled (already-committed) payment, fully or partially. Reverses the spend and restores budget. For pre-commit cancellations use release instead.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "hold_id": "<hold_id>",
      "amount_cents": "<amount_cents>"
    },
    "name": "refund"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hold_id`	Yes	Hold ID of the settled payment to refund
`amount_cents`	Yes	Amount to refund in cents
`idempotency_key`	No	Stable key that makes retries safe. If omitted one is generated, but a retry without the same key will refund again.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the effect (reverses spend and restores budget) but does not detail idempotency or error cases. Still, it provides essential behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with the key action and scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 3 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and alternative. It could mention the return value or partial refund behavior, but it is largely sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats schema descriptions without adding new meaning. It does not clarify format or constraints beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool refunds a settled payment, fully or partially, distinguishing it from similar tools like release. It uses specific verbs and resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use (for refunding settled payments) and when not to (for pre-commit cancellations, use release instead), providing a clear alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server