prepare_extension_payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns parameters for frontend use and requires a subsequent verification step, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether this initiates a payment vs. just preparing parameters.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by essential behavioral details. Both sentences earn their place by explaining what the tool does and how its output is used, with zero redundant information.

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?

For a 4-parameter payment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and high-level workflow but lacks details on parameter meanings, return format, error cases, or security considerations. The mention of verification is helpful but insufficient for full context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'Algorand / VOI only' which partially explains the 'network' enum, but does not clarify the meaning of 'amount', 'currency', or 'label' parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the bare 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 specific action ('prepare an in-page wallet-extension payment'), the resource (payment parameters), and the supported blockchains (Algorand/VOI only). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_payment_link' by focusing on wallet-extension integration rather than link generation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for in-page wallet-extension payments on specific blockchains. It explicitly mentions the follow-up action ('verify with verify_payment + tx_id'), but does not specify when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings like 'create_payment_link' for different payment methods.

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