impreza_topup

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

The description explicitly states the return values (invoice_id, amount, payment_url) and the auto-credit behavior. It also notes no-KYC and privacy-first. However, it omits details like required authentication or potential side effects, but overall provides good transparency.

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, each serving a purpose: defining the action, listing return values, and directing to poll for status. It is front-loaded and concise with no superfluous content.

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 simple top-up creation tool, the description covers the main purpose, return values, and post-use polling. It lacks details on error handling or idempotency, but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% coverage, but the description adds value by specifying the amount range (1.00–10000.00) and explaining that the method parameter is optional and allows switching on the payment page, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'account-balance top-up invoice payable in crypto', listing specific cryptocurrencies. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'impreza_topup_status' which is for polling state.

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 implicitly tells when to use (to top up account balance with crypto) and provides follow-up action (poll impreza_topup_status). It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives, but the context is clear.

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