mifactory-payments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a cost ('5 créditos'), which adds useful context about resource consumption. However, it lacks critical details such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a customer ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 very concise with just two sentences, making it easy to parse. However, the second sentence about cost ('Cuesta 5 créditos') could be integrated more smoothly, and the description is slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, idempotency), output expectations, and usage guidelines relative to siblings. The cost mention is helpful but insufficient to cover the gaps for a tool that creates external resources.

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 schema already documents all four parameters (name, email, metadata, stripe_key) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 cliente') and target resource ('en Stripe'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_payment_link' or 'verify_payment', which also involve Stripe operations but for different resources.

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 like 'create_payment_link' or 'list_payments'. It mentions a cost ('Cuesta 5 créditos'), which hints at resource implications but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases with sibling tools.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a cost implication, which is useful, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as authentication needs (implied by 'stripe_key'), rate limits, error handling, or what the tool returns. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with just two short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and cost. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 the complexity of a payment link creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, security implications, and how it integrates with sibling tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 where 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 clearly states the action ('Crea un link de pago') and specifies the platform ('de Stripe'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_payments' or 'verify_payment', which prevents a score of 5.

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 mentions a cost ('Cuesta 10 créditos'), which provides some usage context, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_customer' or 'list_payments'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the cost (3 credits) which is valuable operational context, but doesn't mention other important behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the stripe_key parameter, or what format the results will be in. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately brief with two sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function and disclosing its cost. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, the second sentence about cost could be integrated more smoothly with the first.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and cost information but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (payment data format), doesn't mention authentication requirements beyond the parameter, and doesn't provide usage guidance relative to sibling tools. The description is minimally adequate but has clear 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 schema has 100% description coverage, so both parameters are already documented in the structured schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's in the schema. With complete schema documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for any gaps but also doesn't contradict 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 ('Lista los pagos') and target resource ('pagos recientes de tu cuenta Stripe'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'verify_payment' or 'create_payment_link' beyond the basic list vs. create/verify distinction.

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 like 'verify_payment' or 'create_payment_link'. It mentions a cost ('Cuesta 3 créditos'), which could influence usage decisions, but doesn't explicitly state when this tool is appropriate versus other payment-related tools.

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. It discloses a cost ('Cuesta 5 créditos'), which is useful behavioral context not in the schema. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs (though implied by stripe_key), rate limits, error handling, or what 'completado' entails (e.g., success status). The description adds some value but leaves gaps for a mutation-like verification tool.

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 with two short sentences: one stating the purpose and one stating the cost. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core function. No wasted words or 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and cost, but for a verification tool that might involve external API calls and mutation-like checks, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or dependencies. It's complete enough for basic use but has clear 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (stripe_key, session_id) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these parameters relate to verification. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Verifica si un pago fue completado' (Verifies if a payment was completed). It specifies the verb (verify) and resource (payment), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_payments' beyond the verification aspect. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 like 'list_payments' or 'create_payment_link'. It mentions a cost ('Cuesta 5 créditos'), which might imply usage considerations, but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions. There's no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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