Generate a Paystack payment link for a project by providing the project slug and customer email, creating a pending payment and returning a checkout URL.
Generate a Paystack payment link for a project. Requires slug and email. Creates a pending payment and returns a checkout URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint false) and not idempotent, but the description adds the key side effect: 'Creates a pending payment' and the return value 'checkout URL'. This goes beyond the annotations, though it omits details like authorization requirements or idempotency caveats.
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?
Two concise sentences, no fluff, and the main action is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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 covers the essence: what it does, prerequisites, side effect, and return. But it lacks details on the exact definition of slug and email, potential failure conditions, or how to proceed after obtaining the checkout URL. Given the tool's relative simplicity and existing sibling context, this is adequate but not fully complete.
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%, so the description must clarify the parameters. It only says 'Requires slug and email' without explaining that slug likely refers to the project slug and email is the customer email. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare field names.
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 states a specific action ('Generate a Paystack payment link') on a concrete resource (a project), and distinguishes itself from sibling payment tools like gatekeeper_list_payments by focusing on initialization and returning a checkout URL.
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?
It gives clear context by saying 'Requires slug and email' and 'for a project', which implies it is used to create a payment for a specific project. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or any alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage from the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.