Has DFX actually been paid for this quote?

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Reads' and 'Free'. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that payment advancement only occurs after DFX verifies a Stripe event and re-reads from api.stripe.com, giving the agent a clearer mental model of the underlying process.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately gives actionable status semantics. Some phrasing is more rhetorical than strictly necessary, such as the examples of non-trustworthy payment signals, but those examples earn their place by preventing common misuse. Overall it is focused and not padded.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the two key statuses, AWAITING_PAYMENT and PAID, and their required follow-up actions. It also explains the trust model and the role of Stripe verification, which gives the agent enough context to use the tool correctly without needing additional documentation.

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?

The schema descriptions fully cover both parameters, and the description adds useful provenance for quote_id by tying it to the PAYMENT_REQUIRED reply and prior fund_dfx_account call. The account_key description also clarifies the conditional fallback when the X-DFX-Account header cannot be sent, which goes beyond a basic label.

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: reading the DFX payment ledger for a single quote. It also strongly differentiates this tool from related payment actions by calling it the 'ONLY trustworthy answer' to payment-status questions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fund_dfx_account and open_dfx_account.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool and how to interpret its results: use it to confirm whether a payment went through, keep polling on AWAITING_PAYMENT, and proceed with the paid call when status is PAID. It also explicitly warns against relying on browser redirects, Stripe success pages, or client belief as substitutes.

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