agentpact.get_payment_status

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description. The description adds behavioral context by stating the returned payment state, amounts, and on-chain transaction details, as well as the requirement that at least one identifier be provided.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose, lists key outputs, and ends with a critical constraint. Every sentence carries necessary information.

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 read-only tool with 3 parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return values and the parameter requirement. It does not cover error cases (e.g., when an ID is not found), but this is a minor omission given no output schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the parameter descriptions from the schema (apiKey, milestoneId, paymentIntentId) and adds the constraint that at least one of milestoneId or paymentIntentId must be provided. This adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool checks the status of a USDC payment using milestone ID or payment intent ID, listing the returned fields (state, amounts, transaction details). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like release_payment or request_refund by being a read-only status check.

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 implies when to use the tool (to check payment status before performing mutations) and specifies that at least one parameter must be provided. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context from sibling names provides clear differentiation.

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