wdk_pay_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'pay' (mutating funds) but lacks details on authorization requirements, reversibility, idempotency, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a payment tool.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value without redundancies.

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 description explains the tool's purpose and a specific use case, but it does not describe the return output or error conditions. For a payment tool, an agent would benefit from knowing what the response contains (e.g., payment hash, status). Given the simple input, it is moderately complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the only parameter 'invoice', including a description. The tool description does not add new semantic details about the parameter beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states what the tool does (pay a BOLT11 Lightning invoice) and specifies a distinct use case (sending payment to a KaleidoSwap deposit address after placing a swap order). This differentiates it from sibling tools like wdk_create_ln_invoice or wdk_list_payments.

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 provides explicit context for when to use this tool: 'after placing a swap order' and to 'a KaleidoSwap deposit_address'. It does not mention alternative tools like wdk_mpp_pay, but the guidance is clear enough for the intended workflow.

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