t2000_receive

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states what it does and returns. It does not disclose potential side effects, expiration of requests, authentication requirements, or limits. Behavioral transparency is minimal beyond the core function.

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: first describes output, second provides usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.

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?

For a request generation tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return values. Minor gaps: currency options (only default USDC mentioned) and how memo/label appear in the URI are not explained.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by mentioning that the URI is scannable by Sui wallets and listing return fields, which provides context beyond the schema.

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 states 'Generate a payment request' with specific outputs (wallet address, URI, nonce, amount/memo). It also explicitly says 'Use when the user wants to receive a payment', clearly differentiating from sibling 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?

The description says 'Use when the user wants to receive a payment, create a payment request, or share their address for receiving funds.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives.

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