get_payment_activation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving payment details but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication (implied by the agent_key parameter but not stated), rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a tool involving financial transactions, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Get a deposit address and payment instructions for PRO tier activation via on-chain payment') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (financial activation tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output includes (e.g., address format, currency, expiration), error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter (agent_key), so the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain why the agent_key is needed or how it's used), but it doesn't need to compensate 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 tool's purpose: 'Get a deposit address and payment instructions for PRO tier activation via on-chain payment.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('deposit address and payment instructions'), and context ('PRO tier activation via on-chain payment'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_activation_status' or 'verify_payment_activation', which reduces it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an agent_key), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_activation_status' (which might check status) or 'verify_payment_activation' (which might confirm payment). This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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