clicks_receive_payment

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

The description discloses the automatic split (80% liquid, 20% DeFi yield) but lacks details on side effects, state changes, irreversibility, or failure scenarios. Given no annotations, the description partially covers behavior but is incomplete.

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 concise (two sentences) but not front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence is a benefit statement rather than a clear description of the tool's function. It could be more direct.

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 should explain the overall behavior and results. It omits important context like whether an on-chain transaction occurs, what the return value is, and prerequisites. The description is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (amount and agent_address) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses marketing language ('Stop wasting idle USDC payments') but does not explicitly state that the tool receives a payment and splits it. The verb 'receive payment' is implied rather than stated. While it mentions splitting, the primary action is unclear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clicks_register_agent or clicks_set_yield_pct. Prerequisites (e.g., having a registered agent or an existing treasury) are not mentioned.

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