algorand_verify_payment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that verification returns a session token on success, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., consuming the proof), failure behavior, or authentication requirements. This is partial transparency.

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 states the purpose and the key outcome. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably documented. However, the description lacks broader context, such as where this fits in the overall payment flow, prerequisites, or what the session token is used for. It is adequate for a simple verification tool but misses opportunity to explain edge cases or flow.

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 has one required parameter 'payment_proof' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what the proof should look like, its format, or any constraints. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'verify' with a clear resource ('x402 payment on Algorand') and specifies the facilitator. This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'rh_verify_payment' and 'algorand_get_quote', making the purpose immediately clear.

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 conveys the usage context: verifying an x402 payment specifically on Algorand through GoPlausible. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the Algorand and GoPlausible specifics give sufficient guidance relative to sibling tools.

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