submit_and_pay_job

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It reveals auto-pay, payment recipient validation, timeout return of job event ID, handling free/paid providers, rejection behavior, and cost implications of inline input.

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 focused paragraph with purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. Good structure for a complex tool.

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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, and cost. Missing some parameter explanations (e.g., kind_offset), but overall fairly complete for the 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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains max_price_lamports well but does not elaborate on input, provider_npub, capability, kind_offset, or timeout_secs. Only partial compensation for low coverage.

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 full flow: submit job, auto-pay, wait for result. It distinguishes from siblings by recommending alternatives for files or git diffs.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool versus submit_and_pay_job_from_file or submit_diff_review. Also explains behavior on timeout, handling free/paid providers, and max_price_lamports usage.

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