pay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses critical safety behavior: payments are refused (not executed) under specific conditions (cap exceeded, payee not on allowlist, or cross-chain cap breach) and that prompt injection cannot bypass these protections. This is significant behavioral context beyond the input schema. It could add details about success/failure responses but is already strong.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second emphasizes exclusivity and enforcement, and the third addresses security. No redundant or filler 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 tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential decision-making and safety behavior. It explains why the tool exists, its constraints, and its security guarantees. It does not describe return values, but without an output schema that is not a clear gap. The sibling tools provide surrounding context for mandate lifecycle, making this sufficiently complete.

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 context about mandate enforcement and safety limits but does not add new meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema adequately explains each parameter, and the description's security context supports overall understanding without needing to repeat parameter details.

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: 'Make a payment on behalf of the agent.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by declaring 'THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO MOVE FUNDS,' which differentiates it from mandate management tools. The purpose is unambiguous and contextually relevant.

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 explicitly states that this is the only way to move funds, providing strong guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'only way' phrasing effectively rules out other tools for this purpose. A more explicit note about using create_mandate first would earn a 5, but current guidance is clear.

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