chainpay_list_orders

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 pagination and status filter but fails to disclose key behaviors such as default sort order, result set scope (user-specific or global), rate limits, or permission requirements. This is minimal and leaves significant gaps.

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 a single sentence of 9 words, perfectly front-loaded and efficient. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 low complexity (list with pagination and filter), the description is adequate for basic use. However, it lacks details on default values, output format, error handling, and sorting order. For a complete understanding, the agent may need to infer or experiment.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply reiterates 'pagination and optional status filter'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage without additional insights.

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 tool lists payment orders with pagination and optional status filter. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like chainpay_create_order (create) and chainpay_get_order (single order).

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 implies usage for listing orders but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., chainpay_get_order for a single order). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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