Add a bot to a payment pool with an optional trust level, then optionally pay a recipient from the shared treasury as that bot.
Add a bot to a pool, and optionally make a payment as that bot through the shared treasury.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pay | No | Optional payment to execute as this bot after allocation | |
| botId | Yes | Bot identifier to add to the pool | |
| poolId | Yes | Pool identifier | |
| trustLevel | No | Initial trust level 0-5 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the payment is executed 'as that bot through the shared treasury', which is real behavioral context, but it omits authorization requirements, interaction with spending limits (there is a sibling paybot_set_spending_limit), atomicity of allocation vs. payment, and reversibility.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the primary action (allocation) and marks the payment as optional. No filler or redundancy.
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?
For a tool that mutates pool membership and can move funds, the description covers the what but not the surrounding constraints (permissions, spending limits, failure behavior). No annotations or output schema exist to fill those gaps, so it is adequate but incomplete for the risk level.
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% and the nested pay object documents token, amount, network, resource, and recipient in detail. The description adds only the framing that pay is optional and treasury-sourced, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Add a bot to a pool') plus an optional secondary action (payment as that bot). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like paybot_pool_create or paybot_pool_revoke, leaving the agent to infer the lifecycle position.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as paybot_pay for standalone payments or paybot_pool_revoke for removal. The agent gets the action but not the context that selects it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.