verify_payment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a meaningful trait: approval happens exactly once and a repeat call returns status='spent'. It also reveals the on-chain confirmation requirement. It does not cover every edge case, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The triggering condition and the exactly-once behavior are front-loaded, and every phrase adds information.

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?

Core invocation details are present, but there is no output schema and the description does not say what a successful approval returns, only that a repeat returns status='spent'. The optional require_onchain parameter is also unexplained, so the definition is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains request_id and amount_raw ('of at least amount_raw' to the one-time address), but the third parameter require_onchain is never mentioned, leaving its semantics to inference from the schema name and default.

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 verb ('approve') and resource ('call for request_id'), with precise conditions: an on-chain send of at least amount_raw to its one-time address. It clearly separates this from siblings like pay_and_call by marking it as the service-side confirmation step.

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 trigger condition is explicit: use this tool once an on-chain send is confirmed. It does not explicitly name the alternative for initiating payment, but the 'service side' framing and the confirmation condition give clear context without formal exclusions.

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