get_task_payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that no auth is required, describes the payment and escrow state machines, lists tx hashes and events, and explains what x402 requirements the caller may need to sign. It does not cover error cases or return format details, but it provides substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 a single dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then organizes return details logically. Every clause contributes information about returned fields or caller requirements, with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and behavior. It does so extensively, covering bounty, payment status progression, escrow custody states, tx hashes, payment events, and x402 requirements. Minor gaps remain around error handling and exact response shape, but the core context is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single task_id parameter is already described in the schema. The description does not add syntax, format, or constraints for task_id, so it meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool as returning payment status and an audit trail for a task, and enumerates the specific payment-related fields it covers. It is specific to task payments, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_task, get_receipt, or fund_task.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to inspect payment status, escrow custody, and x402 signing requirements for a task. The description also notes that no auth is required, which is useful context. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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