botwallet_pay

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: immediate completion via FROST threshold signing within guard rails, owner approval requirements returning 'needs_approval: true', and the need to check botwallet_events and call botwallet_confirm_payment for approvals. It lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but covers critical operational aspects.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the purpose clearly. Each subsequent sentence adds necessary context without redundancy, though it could be slightly more streamlined in the middle section about approval flows.

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 of a payment tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral outcomes, and parameter semantics. It could benefit from mentioning error cases or return value details, but it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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 value by explaining the semantic relationship between parameters: 'Specify `to` + `amount` for direct payments, or `payment_request_id` to pay a specific paylink,' clarifying the alternative usage patterns beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Make a payment') and target ('to a merchant or bot'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like botwallet_balance or botwallet_create_paylink. It specifies the core functionality with specific verbs and resources.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Always call botwallet_can_i_afford first if unsure about your balance,' and it references alternatives like botwallet_events and botwallet_confirm_payment for follow-up actions. It clearly differentiates when to use this tool versus others in the workflow.

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