verify_payment_received

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states a read-only check, but does not describe side effects, rate limits, permissions, or what happens when no match is found. The description is adequate but not enhanced beyond the basic operation.

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 sentence of 14 words, highly concise and front-loaded with the key action and object. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no fluff.

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 6 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain the return value (e.g., boolean, payment details) nor the temporal scope ('since_minutes_ago' is only in schema). While the core verification goal is clear, missing output behavior makes it less complete for an agent without relying on external knowledge.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters well. The description only mentions 'expected amount and token', which adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enrich parameter understanding.

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's purpose: to check recent transactions for a matching incoming payment of an expected amount and token. The verb 'check' and resource 'recent transactions' are specific, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like get_transaction_history or send_token.

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 verifying a payment by matching amount and token, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_transaction_history or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer applicability.

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