构造一笔正和路由支付（消费入口）。返回签名就绪的 approve+pay calldata，调用方本地签名上链即完成原子正和支付：商户收 USDC + 捐赠注入金库 + 引路人分账 + NAV 抬升。路由决策：USDC 够→直接付；USDC 不足但 LOVE×NAV 够→赎回 LOVE 付；都不够→返回缺口。私钥永不经过服务器。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | 订单引用（可选，将 keccak 为 bytes32） | |
| payer | No | 付款方地址（可选，传入则按真实余额做路由决策） | |
| amount | Yes | 支付金额（USDC，必填） | |
| leader | No | 引路人地址（可选，未绑定时可自引自收） | |
| merchant | Yes | 收款商户地址 0x…（必填） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the routing decisions, atomicity, security (private key never leaves client), and output (calldata). It does not detail error responses beyond mentioning '缺口' (shortfall), but overall transparency is good.
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 at about 4 sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing the routing logic. Every sentence adds value without 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 the complexity of routing and atomic payment, the description covers the main behavioral aspects and output. Without output schema, it describes the calldata return. It could elaborate on the exact '缺口' response format, but overall it is complete for an agent to use correctly.
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%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds context for the routing decision (using payer for real balance, amount in USDC) but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 purpose: to construct a positive-sum routing payment, returning approve+pay calldata for atomic execution. It specifies the verb (构造/route), resource (payment), and distinct routing logic based on balances, differentiating it from siblings (affiliate_bind, nav_query, vault_action).
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 explains when to use the tool (for positive-sum payment with routing decision based on USDC and LOVE balances) and provides the routing logic in three cases. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but sibling tools are sufficiently different that confusion is unlikely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.