Pagar QR Code Pix

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that the operation 'movimenta saldo da conta' (moves account balance), aligning with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. It also implies a prerequisite of validation, which annotations do not cover. No contradiction with annotations.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action and required inputs. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it (after validation), and its effect (balance movement). No critical gaps.

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 fully documents each parameter. The description mentions 'Pix Copia e Cola' and 'identificador de envio', corresponding to pixCopiaECola and idEnvio, but does not provide additional detail beyond the schema. This adds marginal value, warranting a baseline 3.

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 request payment of a QR code via its Pix Copy and Paste code and a sending identifier. It specifies the verb 'Solicita o pagamento' and the resource 'QR Code', distinguishing it from sibling tools like pix_send or pix_create_charge which handle other payment initiation methods.

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 a clear usage instruction: 'Use após validar os dados do recebedor e o valor' (Use after validating the receiver's data and the amount). This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives among the many pix sibling tools.

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