Generate Deposit Link

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: this is a one-call flow, the user must complete the payment externally, and the agent should tell the user to check status afterward. The reference for status checking is mentioned but not fully defined, and the absence of an output reference field creates slight ambiguity.

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 well organized with clear sections: purpose, args, returns, follow-up instructions, and examples. It front-loads the core workflow and every section contributes actionable guidance without unnecessary filler.

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates by documenting the return shape and the post-return user flow. Examples and exclusions round out the context, but the 'reference' used for status checks is never clearly introduced, leaving a minor ambiguity.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value with practical natural-language examples ('₦50,000' -> 50000, '₦10k' -> 10000) and clarifies that the optional customer fields pre-fill the payment page. These details help the agent map user requests to correct parameter values.

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 states a specific action ('Generates a payment link'), a clear resource ('deposit NGN into their Monei wallet'), and explicitly distinguishes this from card and USSD multi-step flows. This makes it easy to separate from sibling tools like monei_send_naira_to_bank or monei_check_deposit_status.

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?

It clearly explains the intended deposit workflow: the user opens the returned link, pays via bank, and funds arrive in the NGN wallet. It also explicitly says card and USSD multi-step flows are not supported through this tool, though it does not name specific alternative tools for those flows.

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