agirails_pay

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

The description does not clarify whether the tool performs the payment or only generates code, leaving a critical behavioral gap. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not resolve this ambiguity, and no side effects, permissions, or state changes are disclosed.

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 consists of two sentences, front-loading the core action and adding a usage note. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the second sentence is terse. No unnecessary words.

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 (2 required, no output schema), but the description does not explain the return format (the snippet contents), the 'service' parameter, or behavior on different networks. It lacks prerequisites, error conditions, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps despite moderate complexity.

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?

The description adds value by explaining the auto-selection logic for the 'target' parameter, but only 50% of parameters have schema descriptions (target, amount). The 'service' and 'network' parameters lack any explanation in the description or schema, despite 'network' having an enum and default. The description could better map parameter roles.

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 it returns a TypeScript snippet for smart pay, and distinguishes from sibling tools by highlighting automatic selection between ACTP escrow and x402 instant payment. The verb 'returns' is specific, though the resource 'TypeScript snippet' could be more direct.

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 usage context: 'Use for direct payments without negotiation.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., agirails_request_service for negotiation-based payments).

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