create_business

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says a new business context is created; it does not disclose side effects, payout requirements, uniqueness constraints, required setup, or response behavior. For a mutating create operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 front-loaded declarative sentence with no filler. It efficiently names the operation and purpose, leaving parameter details to the input 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?

The input schema covers all parameters fully, and the description establishes the resource being created. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the definition still leaves operational details—such as what is returned, what happens after creation, and any constraints—unaddressed. It is minimally viable but not rich enough for full autonomous decision-making.

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 100%: business_name, wallet_address, and solana_wallet_address all have meaningful inline descriptions. The tool-level description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Create a new business context' with the purpose 'for receiving direct crypto payments.' This is distinct enough to separate it from create_invoice, though it does not explicitly contrast with the other business-management siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_business or list_businesses. The purpose clause implies a use case for setting up a crypto payment business, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection conditions are provided.

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