Track Offramp

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

Beyond annotations, the description explains the possible status lifecycle, typical completion time, and polling cadence, and clarifies that 'completed' means NGN has been sent. It is fully consistent with the readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive 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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, usage timing, statuses, arguments, return shape, and examples. Each section adds value, especially the return object since there is no output schema.

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 a single required parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, all possible status values, timing context, polling advice, and grounded examples. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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%, and the description repeats the same reference source already given in the schema. It reinforces that the reference comes from the sell call, but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Checks the current status of an offramp transaction by its reference.' This clearly distinguishes it from deposit, wallet, and transfer tools, and ties it directly to monei_sell_crypto_for_naira.

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 explicitly says to use this after monei_sell_crypto_for_naira to monitor settlement, and gives polling guidance for waiting users. It does not name alternative status-check tools or state when not to use it, but the intended workflow context is clear.

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