cashapp_request_money

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it sends a payment request, but fails to mention that this does not transfer funds immediately, that it creates a pending request, or whether it requires acceptance. The agent is left uninformed about side effects.

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 two sentences and relatively short. However, the first sentence ('Request money from another Cash App user') is largely redundant with the second ('Sends a payment request to the specified recipient'), which could have been combined for better conciseness.

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 the three parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks information about return values or the lifecycle of the request. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to understand all implications.

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 is 3. The description adds no meaningful information beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters. It reinforces that the recipient is a Cash App user, but the schema already specifies $Cashtag or phone/email.

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 verb 'Request money' and the resource 'from another Cash App user'. It also says 'Sends a payment request', which distinguishes it from siblings like cashapp_send_money that directly transfer funds.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or which sibling tools are more appropriate for different scenarios.

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