t2000_receive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool returns but does not disclose whether it is read-only or destructive, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The term 'generate' is ambiguous regarding state changes.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with action and return information. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but the description lists expected return values (wallet address, URI, nonce, optional amount/memo). For a simple payment request generation tool, this is reasonably complete. Missing details on error conditions or formatting, but adequate.

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% (all parameters described). The description adds context about returned values (wallet address, URI, nonce) and mentions amount/memo, but does not elaborate on label or currency meaning beyond schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it generates a payment request and returns specific items (wallet address, URI, nonce, optional amount/memo). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by indicating it's for receiving payments, 'Mirrors t2 fund', and contrasts with tools like t2000_pay and t2000_send.

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?

Provides clear use cases: when the user wants to receive a payment, create a payment request, or share their address. Mentions it mirrors t2 fund, implying a known pattern. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or detailed alternatives, but context is sufficient.

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