Update a payment method's non-sensitive fields, including billing and shipping details, cardholder name, and metadata, by providing its payment method token.
Updates a payment method's non-sensitive fields. Requires a payment_method_token. This tool ONLY updates metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment_method | Yes | Fields to update | |
| payment_method_token | Yes | The token of the payment method |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Input schema / properties / payment_method / properties / metadata / additionalProperties / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "boolean"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / payment_method / properties / metadata / additionalProperties / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number",
+ "boolean"
+]v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the description only needs to add context beyond those. It adds that only non-sensitive fields/metadata are changed and a token is required, which is useful, but it does not clarify whether updates replace or merge the metadata object or what response shape to expect.
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?
Three short sentences, with the core action and requirement front-loaded. The final sentence adds emphasis but is partially redundant and introduces ambiguity with the schema, so it is not perfectly earned.
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 schema is rich and fully documented, and annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness. With no output schema, the description still omits the response behavior, and the metadata ambiguity plus lack of sibling differentiation leaves an agent with some uncertainty.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so every property in the nested payment_method object is already described; baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds high-level meaning by labeling fields as non-sensitive/metadata, but the 'ONLY updates metadata' phrasing conflicts with the breadth of fields in the schema, limiting its semantic value.
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 clear action ('Updates a payment method's non-sensitive fields') and names the required token input. However, the closing sentence 'This tool ONLY updates metadata' is ambiguous given the schema exposes many non-metadata fields such as zip, city, expiry year, and shipping addresses, which slightly muddies the intended scope.
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?
The 'ONLY updates metadata' sentence gives a limited when-to-use signal, and the token requirement is a useful precondition. Yet it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, notably the sibling spreedly_payment_method_update_gratis, so an agent cannot easily decide between the update tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.