Request Payout

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

Annotations contain only a title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a write operation, requires JWT authentication, processes asynchronously, confirms only that the request was accepted rather than funds arriving, and is not reversible via this tool. This is exemplary transparency for a mutation operation.

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 efficiently structured, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds distinct value: operation type, authentication, asynchronous behavior, irreversibility, and routing to sibling tools. There is 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?

Given the two-parameter input schema, the presence of an output schema, and sparse annotations, the description covers all essential context: what the operation does, authentication requirements, async nature, reversal policy, and pre-conditions. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and avoid common mistakes.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters and their constraints. The description adds minimal extra parameter context beyond reaffirming the connected account and the available balance requirement, which is acceptable at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 phrase ('Request a payout of earned funds to a connected Stripe Connect account') that clearly identifies both the action and the resource. It also distinguishes this tool from related siblings like civitae_treasury and civitae_op_stakes, so an agent can identify the intended operation without ambiguity.

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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool versus alternatives: use civitae_treasury to check balance and history before requesting a payout, and use civitae_op_stakes for operator-side stake settlement that makes funds available. It also states that payouts are not reversible via this tool, giving clear behavioral expectations.

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