payping_get_paymentRetrieve full payment details by payment code to check success, including amount, dates, payer, card, fees, refund state, and status.
One payment by payment code: amount, dates, payer, card, fees, refund state, paymentStatus plus status_text. Use it to check whether a payment really succeeded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / code / titleRemoved value: -"Code"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"payping_get_paymentArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "payping_get_paymentDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that refund state and status_text are exposed, but says nothing about error behavior for a missing/invalid code or any rate limits.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval scope before the use case, and no filler. The middle field enumeration is a long run-on list but each item is informative.
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, the description's field inventory (amount, dates, payer, card, fees, refund state, status) is the agent's only view of the return shape, and it supplies that adequately for a simple read-by-id tool. Only the missing-error/not-found behavior keeps it from being 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?
The single 'code' parameter has 0% schema description coverage; the description compensates by naming it a 'payment code,' which usefully disambiguates it from invoice or customer codes in this product family. It still omits format expectations (prefix, checksum, typical length) that would let an agent construct the value confidently.
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?
States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (one payment) scoped by payment code, and enumerates the returned fields (amount, dates, payer, card, fees, refund state, paymentStatus, status_text). That distinguishes it from siblings like list_transactions and get_invoice, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'Fetch' and slightly reads like a field list.
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?
'Use it to check whether a payment really succeeded' gives one concrete use case, which is more than a bare restatement. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions – an agent is not told whether to prefer this over list_transactions or how to handle an unknown code.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.