build_payment

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world write operation. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it produces unsigned transactions and atomic EIP-5792 batch calls, operates on Base, and automatically supplies collateral into Aave V3 or Morpho to recover principal plus developer fee.

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, both front-loaded with the most important information: what is generated and the zero-net-cost mechanism. There is no filler or repeated content.

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 complexity, complete schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers chain, output type, and collateral recovery mechanics. It could be slightly stronger by stating preconditions or when to call it relative to quote/rate tools, but no critical invocation detail is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that collateral is automatically supplied via Aave V3 or Morpho, which clarifies the protocol and collateral parameters, though it does not add detail for buffer or amount beyond the schema text.

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 states a specific verb and resource: generate ready-to-sign EVM transactions and EIP-5792 atomic batch calls for a zero-net-cost payment. It also pins the domain to Base (Chain ID 8453), clearly separating this construction tool from read-only siblings like get_rates and get_quote.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for a zero-net-cost payment on Base,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing relative to get_rates/get_quote. It does not state prerequisites such as needing a quote first, nor does it name exclusions.

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