star365 Commerce

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the payment flow, the requirement to send the exact amount, and the need to call purchase_status. It also mentions a billing condition. However, it does not mention any state changes, idempotency, expiration, or the user_confirmed parameter, leaving gaps in behavioral expectations.

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 concise, with two sentences in English and Korean. It front-loads the primary action and provides the next step and a conditional. It is well-structured and efficient, though it could be slightly more streamlined by removing the bilingual duplication.

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 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the payment flow and billing condition but omits the meaning of plan_code, email, and agent_id, and does not describe the response format beyond mentioning the USDT amount and address. It also fails to mention the user_confirmed requirement from the schema.

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 only 40%, and the description only addresses the billing parameter (with the annual condition). It does not explain plan_code, email, or agent_id, which are required but have no schema descriptions. The description adds some value for billing but fails to compensate for the missing coverage of three critical parameters.

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: 'Open a payment for a plan' and explains it returns a unique USDT amount and address. It differentiates from sibling purchase_status by explicitly describing the next step after payment, and the name itself distinguishes it from purchase_quote. The verb+resource is specific.

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 a clear workflow: open payment, send exact amount, then call purchase_status to confirm. It also provides a conditional for using billing='annual' for plans under the network minimum. However, it does not explicitly contrast with purchase_quote or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full 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 behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, needs no account, and reveals an important edge case: the deposit address has a network minimum, making inexpensive plans payable annually rather than monthly. This is meaningful behavior beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the most important facts: pricing, plan scope, currency, and billing intervals. It is compact, but the Korean section duplicates the English content and adds length without new information for an English-language agent.

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 one-parameter, read-only quote tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers pricing, billing intervals, authentication requirements, and a real edge case. It does not describe the exact response structure, but it references billing_options[].payable and is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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%, and the schema already gives an example value for plan_code. The description adds that the plan is a 'star365 plan' but does not add new constraints, allowed values, or formatting guidance beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 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?

States that the tool returns the price and contents of one specific star365 plan in USDT, with monthly and annual variants. This clearly distinguishes it from purchase_intent and purchase_status, which are payment-flow tools, and identifies the resource being queried.

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?

Provides clear usage context: the operation is read-only and requires no account, so the agent knows it can invoke it without authentication or side effects. It also gives a practical instruction to check billing_options[].payable because cheap plans must be annual. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to siblings, but the context is strong.

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 behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: whether the call is read-only (implied but unstated), whether 'arrived' means settled/authorized/pending, latency or polling behavior, or what a negative result looks like. Only the faintest read-only implication is conveyed.

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?

It is short, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness — the single sentence is a rhetorical question that omits the operation name, the resource, and any scoping detail. Front-loading is moot when there is so little content.

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 an unannotated mutation/query profile, one undocumented parameter, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description leaves an agent unable to confirm what is checked or what a result means. It is essentially incomplete.

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 single required parameter intent_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains its meaning or format. With a low-coverage schema the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 question 'Has this payment arrived yet?' implies a payment-arrival status check for a purchase intent, which is a discernible purpose. However, it never states the operation as a verb+resource (e.g. 'check payment status'), and it gives no differentiation from siblings purchase_intent and purchase_quote.

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 call this versus purchase_intent or purchase_quote, nor any stated preconditions. At best the question form weakly implies 'use this to poll whether payment has settled,' which is not enough to route an agent reliably.

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