Pay AGENT to another agent by its .agent name or 0x address. Resolves names, then sends tokens on AgentsCoin.
Pay AGENT to another agent by its .agent name (or a 0x address). Resolves the name, then sends. This is how agents pay each other.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | recipient: a .agent name like 'satoshi.agent' or a 0x address | |
| amount | Yes | AGENT amount, e.g. '5' | |
| privateKey | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose destructive=false->readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a state-changing outward-facing write. The description adds the two-step resolve-then-send behavior, but omits that a privateKey is required to authorize, whether it costs gas, and that the transfer is irreversible.
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?
Front-loaded with the verb and recipient mechanism, quite tight. The closing line 'This is how agents pay each other' is flavor that adds little, keeping it just short of ideal.
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?
No output schema and a fully undocumented privateKey parameter mean the description should carry more, but it neither explains authorization nor the resolution/transfer result. Adequate for the pay action itself but incomplete for safe invocation.
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 67%; the description restates the 'to' semantics (name or 0x address) already present in the schema and does not expand on it. The undocumented privateKey parameter is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb (Pay) and resource (AGENT/agent-to-agent) plus the mechanism (resolve .agent name, then send). It distinguishes itself somewhat by highlighting the .agent name resolution, but never contrasts with the sibling agentscoin_send, so an agent could confuse the two.
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?
Provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With a near-identical sibling (agentscoin_send) available, the definition should route the agent between them but offers nothing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.