verify_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 key behavioral traits: it's a read-only verification operation (implied by 'verify', 'returns status'), distinguishes between on-chain and hosted-checkout verification methods, and mentions the return value. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are important for a payment 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage, and behavior without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a verification tool. It covers the core functionality and parameters but lacks details on output format (beyond 'paid/unpaid status'), error cases, or integration context, which could be important for agent invocation.

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 schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds marginal value by explaining the conditional logic (if tx_id is supplied vs. otherwise) and linking token to create_payment_link, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('verify', 'returns') and resources ('payment', 'checkout token', 'paid/unpaid status'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on payment verification rather than creation or other verification types, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 on when to use the tool (to verify payment settlement) and includes conditional usage based on tx_id presence. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as verify_ap2_payment or verify_mpp_receipt, which could be relevant for different payment types.

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