clawallex_refill

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

With zero annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden excellently. Explains Mode A deducts from wallet, Mode B uses x402 settle without 402 challenge, differing idempotency key behaviors per mode, and auto-generation rules. No contradictions.

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?

Information-dense but well-structured: core purpose → restriction → Mode A logic → Mode B logic → prerequisite tip → concrete example. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose; complex dual-mode logic is explained without 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 high complexity (8 params, 2 distinct payment modes, nested objects) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description comprehensively covers invocation logic and behavioral traits. Minor gap: does not describe return values or success indicators, though this is partially mitigated by the explicit example showing expected input format.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), adds significant workflow context: explains Mode B requires constructing payment_requirements.payTo from the payee_address, clarifies that x402_reference_id serves as the idempotency key in Mode B (distinct from client_request_id), and maps parameters to their respective modes.

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?

Opens with specific verb+resource ('Top up the balance of a subscription (stream) card') and immediately distinguishes from sibling tool 'refill_card' via the restriction 'Only stream cards (card_type=200) can be refilled', clearly scoping the tool's domain.

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?

Explicitly names prerequisite tools ('use get_card_balance first', 'must first call get_x402_payee_address') and describes Mode A vs Mode B selection criteria. Deducts one point for not explicitly contrasting with sibling 'refill_card' for non-stream cards, though the card_type restriction implies this scope.

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