alopeyk_payment_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'no network call' and returns a URL, but fails to disclose authentication needs, rate limits, failure modes, or whether the URL has expiration. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line summary, but the Persian line adds redundancy without value for an English-speaking agent. The Args block is well-structured, but overall it could be trimmed.

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 presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description does not mention prerequisites like authentication or that the instance must be fetched from 'list_instances', which is a sibling. The 'instance' parameter is ambiguous without that context.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds detailed explanations for each parameter: user_id (numeric id), amount (in account currency), gateway (with two options), and instance (configured instance). It also specifies defaults. This greatly enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 it builds a wallet top-up payment route URL and is not a network call. The verb 'build' and resource 'payment route URL' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like order-related tools.

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: it returns a URL for a selected gateway without sending a request. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, though siblings do not overlap significantly.

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