rh_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 payment settles in USDG and returns a session token valid for 60 minutes, but omits failure behavior, whether verification consumes the proof, and any authentication or network constraints.

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 with no redundancy, front-loading the action and adding key details about settlement currency and token validity. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and important result details. It lacks explicit usage guidance and failure modes, but the tool's low complexity means this is adequate.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the payment_proof parameter, so the description adds little beyond restating the payment context. It does not offer format details or examples, keeping it at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 verifies an x402 payment on Robinhood Chain through Naven Network, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling algorand_verify_payment by naming the chain and facilitator.

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 provides clear context: it is used to verify Robinhood Chain payments and return a session token. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions.

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