Create an IMMUTABLE recurring-billing plan; send payers to result.mini_app_subscribe_url. See the subscriptions doc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Plan name shown to payers (≤64). | |
| asset | Yes | Asset code, e.g. USDT. | |
| amount | Yes | Decimal string in MAJOR units, e.g. "5" = 5 USDT. Never a float. Charged per period. | |
| period_days | Yes | Billing period in days. |
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?
It discloses the consequential immutability of the plan and specifies the required follow-up action (send payers to result.mini_app_subscribe_url). Annotations already signal non-readonly and non-destructive intent, and the description adds behavioral value beyond them without contradiction.
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 conveys the core action. The follow-up instruction about mini_app_subscribe_url is essential, and the docs pointer is efficient. There is no fluff or repetition.
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 description covers the core action and the key follow-up field, but there is no output schema and it does not explain the full response shape, idempotency, or error behavior. It relies on an external doc reference for completeness, leaving gaps for an agent invoking the tool blind.
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 input schema documents all four parameters with 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to redefine them. It adds no extra parameter-level meaning such as defaults, dependencies, or formatting beyond the schema, so 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create an IMMUTABLE recurring-billing plan.' The 'IMMUTABLE' qualifier is a key distinguishing trait that separates this from createCheck/createInvoice and signals a durable, non-editable resource.
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 description gives clear context for when to use it: when creating a recurring-billing subscription plan, and it even tells the caller to send payers to result.mini_app_subscribe_url. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of the top score.
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.