t2000_receive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key return values and notes that the URI is scannable by any Sui wallet. It does not mention side effects, but the act of generating a request is likely non-destructive. The description is fairly transparent about behavior beyond input-output.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: core functionality, usage scenarios, and a reference. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no redundant phrases.

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?

The description adequately explains what the tool returns and the URI format, compensating for the lack of an output schema. It covers the main use cases. However, it could mention any potential persistence or authorization requirements, which are absent.

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 additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'amount: Amount to request (omit for open amount)' is already in the schema). It does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool generates a payment request and specifies the outputs (wallet address, URI, nonce, amount/memo). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating usage scenarios like receiving a payment or sharing an address, as opposed to sending/paying.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'when the user wants to receive a payment, create a payment request, or share their address for receiving funds.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the sibling names provide context.

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