setup

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

Annotations already carry idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description goes further by itemizing side effects (registers email, creates Coinbase CDP-managed wallet, writes credentials to ~/.payagent/config.json), stating that no money moves, and explaining the idempotent recovery behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences: purpose and side effects, money-safety, idempotency, and the self-custody exclusion. Every sentence earns its place, and the main verb and resource are front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and only two simple parameters, the description covers what happens, side effects, safety, idempotency, and when to skip it. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name and email. The description adds that email is also the recovery key and advises 'use a real address,' which is critical context for correct parameter choice. It does not add much about the optional name, but the schema already covers its fallback behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates or recovers an ArisPay account for delegated custody and provisions a USDC payer wallet in one call.' It enumerates concrete side effects and clearly distinguishes setup from siblings like pay, history, and balance by framing it as the account/wallet provisioning step.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use: 'if PAYAGENT_PRIVATE_KEY is set, skip setup entirely — pay works with the local key alone.' This routes the agent to the pay sibling and self-custody mode. It also implies the right context for setup (delegated custody).

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