record_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It fully discloses side effects ('receipts.json + needs.json'), the mutation of status to funded, and the critical caveat that tx_hash is not verified on-chain and should be treated as attested by from_entity. This is exemplary 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 four tight sentences: purpose, side effects/status behavior, verification caveat, and relationship to complete_need. Every sentence earns its place and important information is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 there are no annotations, the description covers all essential operational knowledge: what it does, when to use it, what side effects occur, what it does not verify, and what it should not replace. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is already handled elsewhere. The definition is complete for safe 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about the trust model around tx_hash and from_entity, but the schema already documents these details. No parameter-level meaning beyond the schema is needed, but none is significantly added either.

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 opens with a clear verb and object: 'Record a payment receipt after on-chain or x402 settlement.' It then states what is written, the conditional status flip for open Needs, and explicitly differentiates itself from complete_need with 'Not a substitute for complete_need.' An agent can confidently understand what this tool does and how it differs from at least one sibling.

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 precise trigger condition: use after on-chain or x402 settlement. It also provides an explicit exclusion by stating it is not a substitute for complete_need. However, it does not address how this relates to the sibling fund_need, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully complete.

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