get_paymentRetrieve a payment's status, expected, received, and credited amounts, and deposit address by payment_id to track invoices, static addresses, or created payments.
One payment (from an invoice, a static address or create_payment): status (e.g. awaiting_deposit, detected, confirmed, expired), amounts expected/received/credited, deposit address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment_id | Yes | payment_id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming example status values and the returned payment details, though it does not mention error cases such as an unknown payment_id.
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 compact and front-loads the resource before enumerating key fields. It is phrased as a fragment rather than a sentence, but every element is relevant.
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 read-only annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential return-value context: status states, expected/received/credited amounts, and deposit address. It is adequate for a simple one-parameter lookup, missing only edge-case behavior.
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 coverage is 100%, so the payment_id parameter is documented structurally, though its schema description is only tautological. The description adds slight meaning by noting that a payment can originate from an invoice, a static address, or create_payment.
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 identifies a single-payment lookup and lists the returned status/amount/address fields, distinguishing it from list_payments by singular scope. It does not explicitly say "retrieve" but the intended purpose is clear from the title and 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?
It implies usage by mentioning the payment may come from an invoice, static address, or create_payment, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings such as list_payments or get_invoice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.