Create Transaction

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive/non-idempotent; the description adds useful post-action behavior (display pixCopyPaste for PIX, boletoDigitableLine for boleto) and notes that values are in cents. It does not contradict annotations, and the added context supplements the structured hints.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by explicit directives and post-creation reminders. Minor redundancy exists ('na API agora' and 'voce JA ESTA conectado a API') but overall it earns its space.

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 complex tool with 18 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary PIX/boleto flows well but omits card-specific details, optional parameter behavior, error handling, and the broader return structure beyond two fields. It 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it only covers method and amount with examples. The remaining 16 parameters (cardToken, customerId, installments, etc.) are completely undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance for optional but important fields.

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 it creates a PIX, boleto, or card charge directly via the API, distinguishing it from sibling tools like simulate_transaction or create_cashout. It gives concrete examples ('gera um PIX de R$50') that map user requests to tool invocation.

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 description provides explicit when-not guidance ('NAO pergunte via API ou painel') and maps natural language utterances to specific method/amount values. It does not name alternatives like simulate_transaction for testing, so it falls short of a full 5.

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