wdk_list_payments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'recent' but does not define recency or mention pagination, ordering, or whether old payments are omitted. The behavior is implied but not fully transparent. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second provides a practical use case. Perfectly concise and well-structured for its length.

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 low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It could mention output format or that payments are returned in reverse chronological order, but the stated use case compensates. The absence of an output schema is acceptable for a simple list.

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 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it lists recent Lightning payments (sent and received). The use case 'confirming swap deposit' adds context. While it distinguishes the resource, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like wdk_list_channels or wdk_list_swaps, but the resource name is specific enough.

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 a specific use case for confirming swap deposits, which gives guidance on when to use. However, no when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. Among siblings, wdk_get_swap might be relevant for swap confirmation, but no comparison is made.

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