paygentic_request_payment

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the action (spending), constraints (policies, rate limits), and authentication (API key). It does not mention idempotency or error handling, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 extremely concise: three sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose immediately. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 is minimal. It covers the main action and constraints but lacks details on return values, failure modes, or idempotency behavior. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. The idempotencyKey parameter lacks explanation, but the schema covers most; hence a baseline score of 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 states the tool's purpose clearly: 'Request a payment (agent-initiated spend).' The phrase 'agent-initiated spend' distinguishes it from sibling tools like `paygentic_send_money`, which may handle non-agent payments. This specificity helps an AI agent identify the correct tool.

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 constraints: 'Subject to spending policies and rate limits. Requires API key.' This gives context for usage but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., `paygentic_send_money` or `paygentic_create_invoice`). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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