valta_request_spend

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the return states ('approved with a new balance, or denied with a reason') and a critical behavioral limitation: it does not intercept spending through other paths. This is good transparency, though it could mention additional side effects like pending transactions.

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 focused sentences with no waste. It front-loads the purpose and uses bold for the critical warning. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return values, and important usage constraints. It could specify the format of the denial reason or what 'new balance' refers to, but overall it's reasonably complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Request authorization to spend' and specifies the resource 'from an agent's Valta wallet'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like valta_transfer_funds and valta_check_balance by focusing on spend authorization.

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 explicitly explains the tool's scope: 'only governs spend that routes through it' and gives clear guidance on what to do if denied: 'do not proceed with the action and inform the user why'. This helps the agent decide when to use it and how to handle results.

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