Confirm a purchase settled on-chain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the purchase settles on-chain at signing, so confirm failures don't indicate a failed purchase, preventing duplicate buys. It also transparently mentions the side effects of recording history/referral and that it polls the chain, which adds value beyond the raw schema.

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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the required call order. It efficiently packs the tool's purpose, workflow context, and a safety warning with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema and straightforward inputs, the description is complete: it states when to call, what to pass, what it returns (delivery status + tonviewer link), and how to handle failures. This gives the agent all operational knowledge needed to use the tool correctly in 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?

The schema already covers all 4 parameters with 100% description coverage, including that expectedAmount comes from the buy result and is used to pinpoint the transaction. The description reinforces 'Pass `expectedAmount` from the buy result' but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: it polls the TON chain for a settled transaction, returns delivery status and a tonviewer link, and records the result in Hoton's history and referral. It distinguishes itself from sibling buy/wallet tools by explicitly positioning it as the post-signing confirmation step.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call after @ton/mcp send_raw_transaction signs the order.' It also provides critical failure handling advice—'a failure here never means you should re-buy — just retry confirm'—which prevents the agent from taking an incorrect alternative action.

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