payqr

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description says 'Create' implying a write operation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, causing a direct contradiction. Additionally, the description does not specify the return format or any safety concerns, which is a severe omission.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and provides essential context about regional auto-selection. Every word contributes meaning without 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?

Despite high schema coverage and a clear purpose, the description omits the output format (likely a QR code image) and error handling. The contradiction with annotations also undermines completeness. It is adequate but has notable gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the auto-detection logic for standards and how parameters like bic and variable_symbol behave differently per standard, going beyond 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 tool creates a European payment QR code and explains the auto-selection between SPAYD and EPC/GiroCode based on IBAN region. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like qr_payment_batch and other QR generators by specifying its single-payment focus.

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 provides context on when to use it (European payment QR codes) and how it auto-selects standards based on IBAN. However, it lacks explicit comparison to qr_payment_batch and does not state prerequisites or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description claims 'Create payment QR codes', a write operation, but annotations set readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction. While the description does add behavioral context (payment requirement), the contradiction undermines trust.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with 'PAID'. Every sentence adds value: batch purpose, differentiation from sibling, and payment workflow. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description explains it returns the whole set. It mentions independent verification per QR. Lacks detail on exact return format, but adequate for basic use with sibling tool context.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions; the 'payments' array and its sub-properties are fully documented. The description adds batch context but no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool creates payment QR codes for a batch, specifies the use case ('invoice run'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'qr_payment' tool which handles one payment per call.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (for batch) vs 'qr_payment' (single). Also mentions payment requirement via x402 and instructs to call without payment first to receive terms.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already indicate a read-only operation. The description adds 'classify its content', which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotation, providing useful context 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Decode', no superfluous words. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and adequate annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does and the input format. The classification aspect adds contextual value.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description. The description does not add new information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as constraints or format specifics.

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 'Decode', the resource 'QR code', and specifies input format 'base64 PNG/JPEG image or image data URI'. It also mentions classification, distinguishing it from sibling tools that generate QR codes.

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 implies using this tool to read QR codes, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Sibling tools are all generation-focused, so context is implied but not articulated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description says 'Create' implying mutation, but annotations mark readOnlyHint: true, creating a contradiction about whether this tool modifies state. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, and no wasted words; however, it could be expanded slightly to cover output without harming conciseness.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., image data format).

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 coverage is 100% and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for the single parameter, so baseline score applies.

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 'Create a QR code containing plain text' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like qr_payment, qr_vcard, etc., which encode other types of data.

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 explicit when or when-not guidance is given, but the name and siblings imply usage for plain text only, making the intended context clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations include readOnlyHint:true, which is slightly counterintuitive for a 'create' action but consistent with generating a QR code (no side effects). Description does not elaborate on behavior or return format.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but could benefit from more structure or additional context (e.g., output format). No wasted words.

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?

Description is adequate for a simple tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, but it lacks details on the return value (e.g., image URL or data). An agent may need to infer behavior.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a QR code with vCard 3.0 contact info, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like qr_text or qr_wifi.

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 tool vs alternatives (e.g., qr_payment, qr_text). Implied context of contact sharing but no explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description says 'Create', which implies a generative action, but the annotation readOnlyHint=true suggests no side effects. This is a contradiction; the description does not clarify the tool's actual behavior (e.g., it generates a QR code image without persisting anything).

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 a single, concise sentence. It could use more structure (e.g., bullet points for parameters) but is not overly verbose.

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 lacks information about output format or return value, which is important since there is no output schema. It also doesn't address edge cases or usage notes for the parameters.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 ('Create') and the resource ('Wi-Fi network QR code'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like qr_payment, qr_text, etc.

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 or why to use this tool over alternatives like qr_text or qr_vcard. The description only states what it does, not the context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.