paystack-mcp

verify_transaction

Verify a transaction's status using its reference to confirm if it succeeded, failed, or is pending.

Instructions

Verify a transaction's status using the transaction reference

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": {
      "reference": "<reference>"
    },
    "name": "verify_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reference`	Yes	The transaction reference to verify

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does 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 states the action 'verify' but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the response includes, potential errors, or side effects.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately succinct and front-loaded.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the agent can expect from the verification result (e.g., status values, structure). It does not, leaving the return behavior ambiguous. The simple parameter set is well-defined, but the overall behavior is under-specified.

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?

The input schema already provides a description for the sole parameter 'reference' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond restating the parameter's use.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb 'verify' and identifies the resource as 'transaction's status', clearly stating the action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'fetch_transaction', which could also retrieve transaction information.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It only states the purpose without providing contextual usage direction.

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