get_trade_payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Returns details' without mentioning that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, rate limits, or what happens if the payment is not found (e.g., error response). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is optimally front-loaded and all content 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 that there is no output schema, the description does not explain the return format, possible error states, or any other contextual details beyond the basic function. For a simple retrieval tool this is adequate, but lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand behavior without guessing.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that the payment is 'within a trade' which is already implied by the parameter names and descriptions. No additional guidance on parameter formats or constraints is provided.

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 verb 'Returns', resource 'details of a specific payment', and context 'within a trade'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_trade_payments (which lists multiple payments) and update_trade_payment (which modifies).

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 for when to use the tool (to retrieve details of a specific payment given its UUID and the trade UUID), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. No exclusions or comparisons are given, which would merit a 5.

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