Create Payout Quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that: it produces a quote only, and actual movement is deferred to ashar_execute_payout. Beyond annotations it adds genuinely useful behavior: the quote carries a platform fee markup, has an expires_at (so quotes go stale), and supports an optional idempotency key. It does not mention rate limits or any balance/permission preconditions, which keeps it below a 5.

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 front-loaded: the core action and the fee-markup caveat come first, then parameters, then the return shape, then the sequencing instruction. The Args block duplicates the schema almost verbatim, which is some wasted space, but the size stays proportionate to a 5-parameter tool.

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 helpfully enumerates the return fields (quote_id, request_amount, estimated_receive_brl, fx_rate, expires_at, platform_fee) and flags expiry, which an agent needs in order to use the quote in time. What remains unstated is what an agent should do on expiry or how idempotency_key affects replays, but nothing critical to making a correct call 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%, so every parameter is already documented in structured form, and the description's Args block largely restates that (cents, >=500, default 'polygon'). The one added constraint — the amount is expressed in stablecoin cents — is already in the schema example, so there is no semantic value beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (create), a specific resource (payout/withdrawal quote), and the exact direction and rails involved (USDC/USDT -> PIX), including that the platform fee markup is baked in. This is enough to separate it from siblings like ashar_create_payin_quote, ashar_create_transfer_quote and ashar_get_fx_rate without opening any schema.

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_payout,' explicitly names the downstream tool and establishes the required call order, which is the key routing decision for an agent. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use conditions (e.g. insufficient balance, KYC, or tenant prerequisites), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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