ONLY spend tool. Reserves wallet cents for the locked quote_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quote_id | Yes | Locked quote id. | |
| upload_id | Yes | Upload id from farpy_inspect. | |
| webhook_url | No | Optional HTTPS webhook for render.completed|failed|cancelled. Omit to poll with farpy_status. | |
| legal_acceptance | Yes | Must be exactly FARPY_LEGAL_V1. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does state that it spends/reserves wallet cents, but omits critical behavioral traits such as irreversibility, legal acceptance requirements, and lifecycle events (completed/failed/cancelled).
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 extremely concise, front-loaded, and free of filler. Every word contributes, though the brevity leaves some contextual gaps.
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?
Given this is a financial/spending tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the overall workflow or prerequisites, leaving the agent dependent on the schema and sibling tool names to infer correct usage.
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 is 3. The description adds only the 'wallet cents' nuance and does not meaningfully extend the parameter meanings already provided in the schema.
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 states the action ('spend') and the resource ('wallet cents') for a specific context ('locked quote_id'). The phrase 'ONLY spend tool' distinguishes it from sibling tools, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'ONLY spend tool' implies the context, but prerequisites like obtaining a locked quote or upload via farpy_inspect are left to the parameter descriptions rather than the tool description.
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 targets a distinct phase of the rendering workflow: capabilities, upload, inspect, submit, status, download, receipt, and wallet. There is no overlap in purpose, making misselection unlikely.
All tools share the farpy_ prefix and snake_case, but some use verb_noun (inspect_blend, submit_render) while others are noun-only (capabilities, receipt, wallet). This is a minor inconsistency but the pattern is still readable.
Eight tools is well within the optimal range for a focused cloud rendering service, covering the full lifecycle without unnecessary bloat. Each tool earns its place.
The toolkit covers the entire render pipeline from upload to payment receipt, with no obvious dead ends. A cancel operation is the only notable gap, but it is not integral to the core workflow.
