paygentic_create_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that payment increases wallet balance and that an API key is required, but omits other behaviors such as editability after creation, expiry handling, rate limits, or error states. Disclosure is partial and insufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded and contain zero waste. Every part 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 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description does not mention the return format or what the response contains (e.g., the invoice ID or public link). It covers the basic purpose but leaves gaps in completeness for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but the schema already describes parameters well (e.g., amount in USD, exclusive minimum). No extra value is provided.

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 creates an invoice that anyone can pay via a public link and that the wallet balance increases upon payment. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'paygentic_request_payment' or 'paygentic_send_money' by emphasizing the public link aspect.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires API key'), which is helpful, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'paygentic_request_payment' or 'paygentic_send_money'. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparisons.

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