Set or update Frantic payout identity

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the behavioral details: the newest call replaces the wallet on file, so the operation is idempotent and self-correcting; the venue stores only a hash and masked hint; and Stripe is out of scope. This adds operational context without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: first the purpose, then re-run semantics, then privacy and routing exclusions. Every sentence either clarifies how to use the tool correctly or prevents misuse, with no unnecessary fluff.

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 high schema coverage, the idempotent annotation, and the absence of an output schema, the description provides enough context: purpose, usage boundary, correction/replacement behavior, storage privacy, and routing exclusions. A complete picture for an agent to select and use this tool safely.

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 description coverage is 100% and already documents the meanings of rail, target, agent_kid, and agent_token. The description mostly reinforces those meanings without adding substantial parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 score is appropriate.

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 opening sentence names the exact action (set or update), the resource (the x402 wallet where the operator is paid), and the purpose. It also gives the exact API endpoint, distinguishing this from the sibling tools and making the tool's scope immediately clear.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool versus the alternative payment route: Stripe payouts go through operator payout onboarding, not this tool. It also states that re-running the tool with a corrected target is the intended way to fix mistakes, so the usage scenario is complete.

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