list_payments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does substantially: it discloses ordering (newest first), per-item outcome semantics (signed, settled, declined, unknown, broadcast, void), and the crucial data-source distinction between a hash-chained append-only ledger file and process-only state based on AGENTWALLET_LEDGER or policy. It still omits read-only confirmation and pagination behavior, but this is solid behavioral context.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load what the tool lists before moving to ledger/storage nuance. No filler, though the second sentence is somewhat cryptic about the ledger configuration.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers content, ordering, and outcome values reasonably well, but omits return shape beyond the outcome field and gives no pagination/limit guidance despite a 500-item cap on limit. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters (host, limit, since, outcome). The description complements the outcome filter by enumerating the possible outcome values, but says nothing about host, limit, or since beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Spends recorded in this wallet's ledger') and enumerates the kinds of spends it covers (x402 payments, transfers, auto-pay). It clearly defines what the tool returns, though it never names the sibling it competes with (e.g., export_receipts or get_paywall_payments) to sharpen selection.

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 explains what is listed but gives no when-to-use guidance or exclusion criteria. With siblings like export_receipts, get_paywall_payments, and get_usage in the same namespace, an agent gets no help deciding when this is the right tool.

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