create_payment_request

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool generates a request (not a send) and mentions expiry and URI. However, it does not clarify whether any blockchain interaction occurs, what permissions are needed, or if it creates an on-chain record. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 18-word sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every part is essential: generating a request, payable to wallet, expiry, and URI.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and key outcomes (expiry, URI). It lacks mention of the request's purpose (e.g., sharing to receive payment) and does not explicitly differentiate from actual send tools, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema itself already explains each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only briefly mentions the payment URI, which is an output aspect.

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 'Generate' with the resource 'structured payment request payable to this wallet', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'send_token' which actually send payments. It also notes key features: expiry and human-readable payment URI.

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 implies usage for requesting payment (invoice) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_token' or 'verify_payment_received'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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