Create Payin Quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully reinforces this by framing the call as a pre-step to ashar_execute_payin (funds move at execution, not here). It also discloses that quotes expire ('expires_at') and that the platform fee is folded in, but it does not address auth/credential requirements or rate limits. Note the mild tension between 'Create' and readOnlyHint=true; the quote is ephemeral, so this reads as preview rather than a true contradiction.

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 summary sentence, then compact Args and Returns blocks — easy to scan and nothing is padded. The Args list duplicates the schema verbatim, which is a small waste, but it does not hurt usability.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return fields (quote_id, request_amount, estimated_receive, fx_rate, expires_at, platform_fee). Combined with the sequencing hint this is nearly complete; the only real gap is that the optional destination-wallet parameters are left unexplained in combination.

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 Args block is largely a restatement of the schema. It does add a little meaning ('what the client receives' for token, 'to safely retry' for idempotency_key), but never explains how wallet_id and blockchain_wallet_id interact or whether one is required — the one genuinely ambiguous pairing.

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 a specific verb+resource+flow: 'Create a deposit (PIX -> USDC/USDT) quote', plus what is baked in (platform fee markup). The payin direction is unambiguous, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling quote tools (ashar_create_payout_quote, ashar_create_transfer_quote) beyond the name.

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 final line 'Use before ashar_execute_payin' gives clear lifecycle context and an explicit next step. There are no when-not conditions or mention of when to prefer a payout/transfer quote instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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