solidrpc_top_up

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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It adds real value by stating that no funds move and that settlement happens externally via x402 requirements, but it omits whether the reservation expires, whether it counts against the ceiling persistently, or what happens on failure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the key behavioral caveat, then the follow-up step. 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 mutating two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential safety caveat and next step but leaves the return payload (quote reference, expiry, x402 requirements shape) and ceiling-exceeded behavior undefined. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would need to discover by calling.

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 and largely does not. 'Within the signed payment ceiling' adds constraint meaning for amountCents, but the idempotencyKey — including its 16-character minimum and deduplication behavior — is never explained, and units/limits for amountCents are left to the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Reserve a top-up quote') plus a scope constraint ('within the signed payment ceiling'), which is far more informative than the bare name. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as solidrpc_billing or solidrpc_usage.

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?

It gives workflow context ('Does not transfer funds. Use the returned x402 requirements with an owner-authorized external wallet'), which implies this is the quote step preceding an external settlement. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance or named alternative, so usage is only implied.

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