create_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a wallet address, QR code, and invoice URL, but does not mention side effects (e.g., creating a persistent payment record), potential fees, rate limits, or that the payment expires if not completed. The creation action is implicit but not elaborated with safety or operational 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and key returns. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, but the description explains the return values. The schema covers parameter details, so the description only needs to tie them together. However, it does not mention any prerequisites like requiring a store, or the meaning of the callback URL and expiration, leaving some context gaps. Adequate but not rich.

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 description coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter semantics beyond saying the payment is crypto and returns payment details; it does not compensate for or augment the schema. This meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 and resource: 'Create a crypto payment.' It adds specific return information (wallet address, QR code, invoice URL) that helps differentiate from sibling tools like create_invoice or create_withdrawal. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it slightly misses the top 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as create_invoice for non-crypto invoices or create_withdrawal for payouts. The description implies use for accepting crypto payments but does not state exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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