request_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It explains that a spend policy determines if the payment is allowed, blocked, or requires human approval, and mentions asset-specific policy limits. However, it does not disclose the exact behavior when blocked (e.g., error type) or the approval flow details. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 neatly structured: a purpose sentence, a usage directive, then a bullet-like list of arguments. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers all parameters and mentions the spend policy and asset limits. It lacks information about the return value (e.g., a payment request ID) and does not clarify how this tool interacts with 'request_approval' (e.g., does it trigger an approval?). Still, it is largely complete for a payment request tool.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: recipient (0x address), amount (in whole units of asset), reason (audit log entry), and asset (ETH default or token symbol with policy limits). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 specifies 'Request to pay an address' and explicitly states 'Use this whenever you need to send a payment; do not attempt to move funds any other way.' This clearly identifies the tool's action and resource, and distinguishes it from any alternative means of moving funds.

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 gives a clear directive: 'Use this whenever you need to send a payment; do not attempt to move funds any other way.' It could be improved by explicitly mentioning when not to use it (e.g., if manual approval is needed elsewhere) or how it relates to sibling tools like 'pay_x402', but it still provides strong guidance.

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