Start token issuance WITHOUT the Mini App UI: creates a merchant-app request and returns a t.me approve link plus a poll_secret. Show the link to the human — they approve with one button in the @tgpaycryptobot bot — then call connect_status with the poll_secret. Use only when no API token is configured yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_name | Yes | Merchant app name shown to the approving human, 1-64 chars (e.g. the project/bot name). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it creates a merchant-app request, returns a t.me link plus poll_secret, and requires human approval in a bot. This is valuable process-level disclosure not available from annotations.
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 yet information-dense: what it does, what it returns, how the human flow works, and when to use it. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important usage condition is front-loaded.
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 one simple parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides all necessary invocation context: input, return values, follow-up call, and usage condition. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
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 parameter app_name is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description references the parameter only indirectly as 'Merchant app name' and adds no new format or constraint details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Starts with a specific verb 'Start token issuance', names the resource (merchant-app request), and explicitly contrasts with the 'Mini App UI' flow. It also distinguishes the follow-up tool connect_status, making its scope unambiguous among siblings.
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?
Provides an explicit condition ('Use only when no API token is configured yet') and walks through the human-approval flow, ending with a pointer to connect_status. The agent knows exactly when to invoke this tool and what to do next.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource or action: invoices, subscription plans, subscriptions, checks, transfers, balance, rates, and auth flows. The two-step connect/connect_status pair is clearly separated into initiate and poll, and similar actions like archiveSubscriptionPlan versus cancelSubscription are explicitly differentiated.
The vast majority of tools follow a camelCase verb_noun pattern such as createInvoice, getSubscriptions, and refundInvoice. The exceptions are connect_status and get_docs, which use snake_case, creating a minor but noticeable inconsistency.
At 21 tools, the server is on the heavier side but the breadth of a merchant payment API justifies it: auth, invoices, subscriptions, transfers/checks, balances, exchange rates, stats, webhooks, and docs all need coverage. No tools feel redundant, though a few list-only endpoints could arguably be consolidated.
Core invoice and subscription lifecycles are well covered: create, list, delete, archive, cancel, and refund. However, there is no visible createTransfer or createCheck tool even though the API includes transfers/checks docs and deleteCheck/getTransfers, leaving a notable dead end for initiating transfers.