peck_request_payment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the messagebox mechanism, the asynchronous approval path, the return payload {requestId, requestProof}, and that the broadcast is signed by the keychain-resident agent identity. This gives an agent an accurate model of side effects and trust boundary.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose, flow, return value, and signing identity are each given exactly one sentence. The most important action is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the tool does, how the payment returns, what the agent receives, and who signs the broadcast. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly alongside the fully documented parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds workflow context but does not elaborate on parameter formats or defaults beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Ask a recipient for a BRC-29 payment' via the PeerPay payment_requests messagebox. It also clarifies the wallet-side experience and distinguishes the request flow from related send/payment tools, even without naming them.

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 intended use is clear: initiate a payment request that the recipient approves, after which BRC-29 BEEF is returned and auto-internalized. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow context makes when to use it evident.

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