changelly_receive

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the variable-rate swap, deposit address generation, and QR output. However, missing details on swap expiration, rate lock, slippage, or consequences of omitting the refund address. Basic behavior is covered but lacks depth.

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, front-loading the main purpose and key output. It uses clear sentences with no wasted words. Slightly longer than necessary, but still efficient.

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?

Covers the basic flow and outputs (deposit address, QR code) despite no output schema. However, missing details on swap lifecycle (timeouts, failures), amount constraints, and error handling. Adequate but has gaps for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only strongly recommending external_refund_address. No explanation of amount_to/amount_from mutual exclusivity or enum values, so it meets the minimum.

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, specifying the returned deposit address and settlement to wallet's Liquid address. It distinguishes from sibling tools like changelly_send and sideshift_receive by naming the specific asset and provider.

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?

Provides clear context: the external sender pays the deposit address, and strongly recommends external_refund_address. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., for fixed-rate swaps) or list alternatives, though the flow is well-described.

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