changelly_receive

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds value by disclosing it is a variable-rate swap, involving an external sender, and strongly recommending a refund address. It does not cover failure modes or fees, but is reasonably transparent for a receive operation.

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 with three sentences covering purpose, flow, and a key recommendation. No redundant information, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 5 parameters, the description covers the main flow but lacks details on return format, post-deposit status checking, and potential errors. However, it is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 high (80%), so description adds limited new meaning. It emphasizes the need for external_refund_address, but does not clarify wallet_name or external_network beyond schema defaults and enums.

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 receives USDt-Liquid via a Changelly variable-rate swap, explaining the flow (returns deposit address, external sender pays, settles to wallet). It is distinct from siblings like changelly_send and changelly_quote.

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 implies the tool is for receiving USDt-Liquid and explains the process, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., fixed-rate swaps, other services) or state when not to use it.

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