Fund Wallet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the side effect of initializing funding and the return of a checkout URL, but does not cover limitations, reversibility, or post-payment behavior. Some context is given but not comprehensive.

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 consists of two sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and directly states the key output. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the essential information: purpose, payment provider, and return value. It could mention that the checkout URL is temporary or that funding is pending, but it is sufficient for a straightforward tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents both parameters (email and amount). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no clarifications about format or constraints). 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 clearly states the action ('Initialize wallet funding') and the payment gateway ('via Paystack'), and specifies the output ('Returns a checkout URL to complete payment'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like neuron_fund_campaign (campaign funding) and neuron_verify_wallet_funding (verification).

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 implies usage for funding a wallet, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, and the context only suggests this is the tool for wallet funding without differentiating from similar funding tools.

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