get_checkoutRetrieve checkout details by ID for payment verification and order management.
Retrieves the checkout with the given ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Exact opaque native resource ID; no traversal or URL. | |
| account | No | Exact private profile label. Does not prove store ownership; mode applies to the main API key only. | |
| include | No | Comma-separated supported primary relationship names: store, variant. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does 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 structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it says nothing about lookup failures, permission/scope behavior, or that the 'include' expansion changes the payload.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. It errs toward under-specification rather than verbosity, but no sentence is wasted.
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?
For a read-only getter whose annotations carry the safety profile and whose schema is fully described, the minimal text is close to sufficient. It still omits any note on not-found behavior or the optional relationship expansion, and there is no output schema to cover return shape.
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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies: the schema fully documents id, account, and include. The description mentions only the ID and adds no meaning about the account scoping or the allowed include relationships.
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 and resource ('Retrieves the checkout') plus the selection key ('with the given ID'), so intent is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_checkouts or create_checkout, but the verb makes the distinction inferable.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus list_checkouts or get_store, and no preconditions (e.g., needing a known checkout ID) are stated. The required id parameter implies you must already have an identifier, but the description itself offers no routing or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.