valta_proxy_request

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: amount declaration, wallet limit checks, approval gate, credential usage, auto-refund on failure, and supported services. No contradictions.

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 a single paragraph with multiple sentences, each adding value. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded. Could be more structured with bullet points, but currently concise and clear.

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 8 parameters, 6 required, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: approval process, refund behavior, supported services, and parameter meanings. It is complete for agent decision-making.

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%. The description adds context beyond schema: e.g., 'amount' is declared cost, 'agentId' is wallet ID, 'description' is audit trail. It explains the approval flow, clarifying parameter roles.

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: making a real outbound API call via Valta's spend-gated proxy. It specifies the verb 'make', the resource 'outbound API call', and distinguishes from calling the provider directly. Example services are listed, aiding differentiation.

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 (for proxied calls to connected services) and lists supported services. It implicitly indicates when not to use (unsupported services), but lacks explicit alternatives like direct calls. Clear context but no explicit when-not.

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