coronium_get_payments

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the full ledger (not a single payment) and implies a read-only operation through the 'get' verb and reconciliation purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly mention absence of side effects, rate limits, or pagination, but for a read-only listing tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the action and resource, then provide purpose and sibling differentiation. Every word earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the only source of context. It covers the core behavior (full ledger retrieval), the purpose (reconciliation), and the key contrast with a sibling. For a simple listing operation, this is nearly complete, though it could optionally mention response format or pagination if relevant.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter-level detail because none is needed.

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 retrieves the full payment and invoice ledger for the account, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool coronium_get_payment_status, which checks a single payment, 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 explicit usage context: 'for reconciliation / spotting duplicates or overpayments'. It also names the alternative tool (coronium_get_payment_status) and explains the difference, giving agents clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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