request_payment

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it discloses the 5-minute approval wait, user password requirement, the autopay exception, per-payment and daily limits, the emergency lock, and the return shape. It also warns against sending a password as an argument, which is a critical safety behavior.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains approval mechanics, then maps the arguments and return values. No filler or redundant emphasis remains.

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?

This tool is a mutating, user-required action with no output schema, so the description must supply the return contract itself; it does so with status, tx_hash, and explorer link. The approval behavior, autopay edge case, limits, and safety instructions are all covered, leaving no major practical gap for an agent invoking the 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?

The schema already covers all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is appropriate. The description adds marginal but valuable guidance: the memo should always be filled because the user reads it, and passwords must never be an argument. Token defaults are repeated from the schema rather than newly explained.

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 a specific verb plus a clear resource: "Asks the user to make a payment." It goes on to define the approval flow, which sharply separates this tool from the read-only siblings like get_balances and get_history. The purpose is unambiguous even without a title.

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 practical usage context: fill the memo, never pass a password, and understand the autopay exception. It does not explicitly say "use this instead of X" or list when not to use it, but the write/approval nature is clear next to read-only siblings. It therefore has clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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