create_payment_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output (short token and public URL) and payment options, which adds useful context beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent (though the idempotency_key parameter hints at this). The description is adequate but misses key behavioral traits for a payment creation tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and efficiently covers the output and payment methods without unnecessary details. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it concise and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and the output format, but lacks details on return values (since no output schema exists), error conditions, or integration context. For a payment tool, this leaves gaps in understanding full behavior, though it covers the basics adequately.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. It implies parameters like amount and network but doesn't elaborate, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 specific action ('Create a hosted AlgoVoi checkout URL'), identifies the resource (payment link), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like verify_payment or list_networks by focusing on creation rather than verification or listing. It specifies the output (short token and public URL) and payment methods (USDC or native tokens).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like prepare_extension_payment or other sibling tools. It mentions the tool's function but offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.

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