wapupay_order_status

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: it re-reads from WapuPay (network call), returns specific boolean flags, and describes the state machine (CREATED → FUNDING_ISSUED → EXECUTED with terminals). No hidden side effects or contradictions.

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?

Description is compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. Four sentences convey all necessary information without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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, the description covers return values (is_final, is_success, is_failed) and state transitions. It also mentions related tool wapupay_transaction for fetching details. Complete for a status-checking tool with clear state machine.

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?

Single parameter tentative_id with schema description 'Order id from wapupay_create_order'. Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema. While sufficient, it doesn't elaborate on parameter format or constraints.

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 checks a WapuPay P2P order's status, re-reads from WapuPay, and specifies return fields (is_final, is_success, is_failed) along with state transitions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wapupay_transaction by indicating when to use that instead.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (to check status) and when to use wapupay_transaction (if funding_transaction_id or executed_transaction_id are present). Provides clear context for selection among siblings.

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