quote_payment

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety posture is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the 30-second expiry on the quote and the fact that a signed quote is returned. It does not clarify whether quoting has side effects or requires auth.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose followed by the output fields. The enumeration of return fields is justified because there is no output schema, though it is slightly list-heavy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned figures and the expiry, compensating for the missing output contract. It is incomplete on the surrounding workflow, though — how quoting relates to the payment lifecycle and sibling tools is unaddressed.

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 all five parameters are documented in the schema (mint, payee, amount, network, idempotency_key). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Price a payment to a payee') and enumerates what the quote contains, so the agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_pricing or build_payment, leaving the boundary ambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. With siblings such as get_pricing and build_payment present, the description never says whether quoting precedes building or is an alternative to fetching pricing, nor states preconditions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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