fund_need

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and it delivers: it discloses that the tool is read-only, has no side effects (does not mark funded or broadcast), and returns an error for missing ids. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to know before calling.

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 short sentences each carry distinct value: purpose, side-effect disclosure, and downstream workflow/error behavior. The description is appropriately sized with no filler.

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 single-parameter quote tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, safety profile, error handling, and the next step in the payment flow. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 only parameter, need_id, is fully explained in the schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 a specific action ('Return x402-style payment requirements') on a specific resource ('an existing Need'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the settlement step by naming record_payment. This clearly separates it from siblings without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

It gives explicit context: this is a read-only quote, not the action that funds the Need, and instructs to call record_payment with tx_hash after settlement. This tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative in the workflow.

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