create_payment_request

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral traits. It only states it creates a payment request and returns output, omitting details like idempotency support (despite idempotencyKey in schema), authorization needs, side effects, or whether the payment is immediately actionable.

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 two sentences, very concise and front-loaded with the key action. No unnecessary words. However, it is slightly too terse and could benefit from a bit more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain the return structure beyond 'payment URL and request id', nor does it clarify how the payment URL is used or any expiry. The absence of output schema increases the need for a fuller description.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond schema; it only summarizes output. Parameter descriptions in schema are adequate, but the tool description does not augment them with usage context or examples.

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 it creates a Centrapay payment request under a merchant config and returns a payment URL and request id. It uses specific verbs and resource names, and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_merchant or create_refund.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a merchant config first) or scenarios where this tool should or should not be used, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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