mifactory-payments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost (5 créditos), which is useful, but otherwise only states the action 'create'. It does not explain side effects, error conditions, or the need for a valid Stripe key, making the behavioral picture quite thin for a mutating operation.

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: two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then the cost. There is no redundancy or fluff, and each sentence provides distinct value.

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 create tool with full schema coverage, the description gives the essential purpose and cost, but lacks usage context, behavioral details (like idempotency or potential failures), and does not compensate for the absence of an output schema. It is minimally viable but leaves several operational questions unanswered.

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%, with all four parameters having descriptive names and descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Crea un cliente en Stripe' (Creates a customer in Stripe), which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_payment_link, list_payments, and verify_payment, as it focuses on customer creation rather than payments or links.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where another tool would be preferred. The only additional info is the cost, which is not a usage guideline.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the cost of 10 credits, which is useful, but omits side effects, authentication requirements, success/failure behavior, or return value. As a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 exceptionally concise, using two short sentences to convey the primary purpose and the key constraint of cost. Every word serves a function with no redundancy.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the generated payment link URL) or any operational context beyond creation. The cost mention helps but leaves significant 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Crea un link de pago') on a specific resource (Stripe payment link), making its purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_customer, list_payments, and verify_payment.

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 use when a Stripe payment link needs to be created, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The sibling tools are distinct, but the description offers no direct guidance.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the credit cost ('Cuesta 3 créditos') and the read-only nature implied by 'Lista'. However, it does not mention failure modes, rate limits, or return format details.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the cost note. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail.

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 list operation with fully documented schema parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and a key operational constraint (credit cost). It could mention the return format more explicitly, but the description is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (limit and stripe_key). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'recent payments', so it does not exceed the baseline set by 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 verb 'Lista' (lists) and the resource 'pagos recientes de tu cuenta Stripe' (recent payments of your Stripe account). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_customer, create_payment_link, and verify_payment by focusing on reading existing payment 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?

The description implies usage for viewing recent Stripe payments but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, but the straightforward purpose makes the context reasonably 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the cost ('Cuesta 5 créditos') but does not describe return values, error behavior, or whether the operation is purely read-only. The verification nature implies read-only, but that is not explicit.

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: two short sentences that front-load the primary action and include the important cost detail. 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the agent can expect as a result. It does not mention the return format (e.g., boolean, status object), leaving a critical gap for correct invocation and interpretation. The cost detail is useful but not sufficient for full completeness.

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%, with clear definitions for both session_id and stripe_key. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Verifica') and resource ('si un pago fue completado'). This distinguises it from sibling tools like create_customer or list_payments, which perform different actions.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool (to verify payment completion), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like list_payments, nor any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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