fund_task

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden: it discloses the two-phase x402 handshake (unsigned call returns PaymentRequired with payTo = escrow wallet; signed call settles the deposit and makes the task claimable) and the auth constraints (creator only, keypair required). It omits edge behavior such as what happens if the second deposit also fails or whether the prior signature expires.

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 tight sentences ordered by importance: what the tool does, how the handshake works, then the authorization constraints. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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 describes the return (PaymentRequired) and the state transition to 'claimable', plus auth requirements. Minor gaps remain around failure/expiry handling of the signature and any fee or gas considerations for a payment-bearing tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds functional meaning: payment_signature is the payload returned by the previous fund_task call, and payment_signature's absence changes the entire behavior (quote vs. settle). That is value the schema text alone does not convey.

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 (deposit/fund) and resource (escrow task bounty), plus a precise precondition: re-funding after a first deposit failed or expired, i.e. escrow status 'unfunded'. This clearly separates it from create_task and cancel_task among the siblings.

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?

Gives the triggering condition (prior deposit failed/expired, status 'unfunded') and references create_task as the tool with the same handshake, implicitly marking it as the first-deposit path. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g. for a fresh task), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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