payment_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions 'most recent' receipts. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, affects data, or any other behavioral traits beyond the default implication of a read operation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It contains no extraneous words, though it could benefit from additional useful details without sacrificing 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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description omits parameter information and usage context. It provides basic purpose but lacks the completeness needed for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has one parameter (limit, default 20) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the limit parameter, its purpose, or expected values, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance.

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 returns 'the most recent cross-rail settlement receipts', specifying the resource (settlement receipts) and scope (unified ledger across all rails paid through). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like discover_payment_rails (discovery) and pay_for_resource (payment).

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, such as discover_payment_rails or list_known_rails. There are no prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions mentioned.

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