Get Qi Payment Code

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains that the operation is purely local with no network call, that it requires the password because BIP-47 key material is derived from the mnemonic, and that a fresh on-chain address is derived behind the scenes per sender. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model.

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, information-dense passage with no filler. It front-loads the core action and definition, then efficiently explains the key distinction, the password requirement, and the local nature of the operation. Every sentence contributes essential 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?

For a simple read-only getter with a fully documented schema and relevant annotations, the description covers the important behavioral context: purpose, usage, password need, and local execution. It does not explicitly describe the return value format, but given the tool name and context, an agent can reasonably infer it returns the payment code.

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 100%, satisfying the baseline. The description adds meaningful context by explaining why password is required and that the derivation is local, which helps the agent understand the role of that parameter beyond the schema's 'The wallet's password.' It does not repeat every parameter, but it adds value where it matters.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get the reusable BIP-47 payment code for a Qi wallet.' It further clarifies what the thing is for and explicitly distinguishes it from an on-chain address, so an agent can clearly understand the tool's unique purpose relative to siblings like send_qi and get_qi_balance.

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 gives clear usage context: this is what you hand someone so they can send you Qi via send_qi, analogous to handing out an address. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternative tools beyond referencing send_qi, but the intended use case is well conveyed.

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