chainpay_create_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the creation action, return values, and supported chains, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects like fund holds.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return info, supported chains, and a prerequisite. No fluff.

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, but description mentions return values (payment URL and wallet address) and a prerequisite. For a creation tool with 6 parameters, it covers essential aspects, though error handling or idempotency details are 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%, with each parameter described. The description adds value by noting that the chain parameter corresponds to TRON/BSC/POLYGON and that minimum amounts should be checked, which is not in the schema.

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 'Create a new cryptocurrency payment order' and specifies it returns a payment URL and wallet address. It distinguishes from siblings like chainpay_create_withdrawal by describing a different action.

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 to 'Call chainpay_get_supported_chains first to check minimum amounts' provides a clear prerequisite. While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the sibling names and context imply distinct use cases.

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