Sign Alipay business parameters with RSA2 and return the complete signed parameter set, ready for direct POSTing to the Alipay gateway.
支付宝：对业务参数做 RSA2 签名，返回带 sign 的完整参数（可直接 POST 到网关）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cred | No | 凭证（可省略，改用环境变量；PEM 字段可直接传 PEM 全文或 .pem 文件路径） | |
| extra | No | 其他公共参数，如 notify_url | |
| method | Yes | 如 alipay.trade.precreate | |
| timestamp | No | ||
| bizContent | Yes | biz_content 业务参数对象 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior—RSA2 signing and returning a complete signed parameter set—but it does not mention credential requirements, default timestamp generation, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, algorithm, output, and intended downstream use in very few 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?
The description plus schema is enough for a basic invocation: method and bizContent are required, cred is optional, and the output is a signed parameter set. However, with no output schema and no mention of credential fallback details or usage boundaries, some gaps remain for an agent navigating among many sibling payment tools.
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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, leaving timestamp undocumented, but the schema already explains most parameter purposes.
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 states a specific operation: signing Alipay business parameters with RSA2 and returning the complete parameters including sign. It does not name sibling tools, so it misses explicit differentiation, but the verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.
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?
Usage is implied by the description: use this when you need to sign Alipay parameters before POSTing to the gateway. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it distinguish itself from sibling tools like alipay_precreate or alipay_build_pay_url.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.