zcash_pay

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure and does add real behavioral context: it discloses the mock-chain default (important so the agent doesn't assume real funds move), a hard per-call spending cap, and an audit-log side effect keyed by viewing-key fingerprint. It stops short of stating permissions, failure behavior, or reversibility, which is a gap for a payment tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its constraints front-loaded before the secondary details (mock default, audit log). Every clause earns its place.

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 payment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, default execution mode, and a side effect. It omits error/failure semantics and whether the cap is configurable, but the essentials an agent needs to invoke it are present.

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%, so all three parameters (memo, recipient, amount_zec) are already documented in the schema, including the allow-list and cap constraints. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, so 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Pay shielded ZEC'), and further narrows scope with two constraints ('allow-listed recipient', 'hard per-call spending cap'). No siblings exist, so no differentiation is required, and the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Mock chain by default' implies a real-chain mode exists, but the description never states when to use this tool versus other operations, nor any preconditions beyond the allow-list/spending-cap facts already implied by the schema. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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