topup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action (credit) and the prerequisite, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, rate limits, error handling for invalid tx_hash, or any idempotency guarantees. More detail would be beneficial.

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 with two sentences. The main action is stated first, followed by the prerequisite and input instructions. No superfluous words; every sentence adds necessary information.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what input is required. It lacks information about the return value or possible errors, but the context is mostly sufficient for an agent to decide and 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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the meaning of tx_hash: the transaction hash from the on-chain USDC deposit. This adds significant value beyond the schema's minimal 'Tx Hash' label, though it could be slightly more explicit about the format or source.

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 specific action (credit a prepaid balance) and the resource (from an on-chain USDC deposit to the recipient). It distinguishes the tool's purpose by outlining the prerequisite steps, making it unambiguous even without sibling tools.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: after sending USDC to the recipient on Base. It provides a clear prerequisite and indicates the required input (tx_hash). However, it does not discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the tool is single-purpose.

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