Create Transaction

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true; the description is consistent with these and adds genuinely useful behavior: amounts are in cents, no merchant ID is required, and it prescribes post-creation handling of pixCopyPaste/boletoDigitableLine. It omits auth/permission requirements and any idempotency behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then instructions, value examples, and post-creation display guidance in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place; it is dense but not padded, though the multiple examples add length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully tells the agent which result fields to surface (pixCopyPaste, boletoDigitableLine). However, for a 17-parameter mutation tool it leaves most parameters unexplained and gives no auth/idempotency context, so it is only adequately 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 17 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains two of them: amount is in cents and method takes Pix/Boleto (and mentions card implicitly via examples). The other 15 parameters (cardToken, customerId, installments, boletoDueDate, callbackUrl, etc.) are entirely undocumented, which is a substantial gap.

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: create a PIX, boleto, or card charge via the API. It is distinguishable from the other create_* siblings (create_order, create_customer, create_cashout) because it names the payment-method scope and the amounts involved. An agent knows exactly what this tool produces.

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?

Gives explicit usage context, including when-not-to-ask ('não pergunte via API ou painel / qual framework') and maps natural-language requests to concrete calls (method=Pix, amount=5000). It does not, however, compare itself to the near-neighbor create_order or create_payment_link, so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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