hou_tea_get_payment_requirements

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool initiates a payment intent, auto-includes buyer order grouping, and requires the wallet to POST the identical request body with an X-Payment header on retry. It does not mention side effects or error cases but provides key behavioral traits.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, covering initiation, return details, and wallet action. Slightly technical but no wasted words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the return (payment requirements) and required follow-up. However, it lacks error handling, output format, and success/failure behavior, leaving gaps that an agent might need.

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 only 33%, with only unit_price having a description. The description does not mention any parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Parameters like product_name and quantity have no description in either schema or description.

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 initiates an x402 USDC payment intent for a product, returning payment requirements with recipient address, amount, and network. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hou_tea_browse and hou_tea_check_order, which handle browsing or order checking.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the purpose implies it's for initiating payment, there is no mention of prerequisites or when to use other tools like hou_tea_recommend or hou_tea_explain.

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