t2000_receive

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses outputs (wallet address, URI, nonce, amount/memo) and that the URI is scannable. However, it does not mention side effects like whether it creates an on-chain transaction, requires wallet connection, or incurs fees, which are relevant behavioral details for an AI agent.

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 concise sentences. The first explains the core function, the second gives use cases, and the third references a sibling. No redundant 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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists return values. It covers the key aspects: wallet address, URI, nonce, amount/memo. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., wallet connection) or error conditions, which would enhance completeness for an autonomous agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema: it clarifies that amount can be omitted for open amount and currency defaults to USDC. The mention of 'optional amount/memo' repeats schema. The added context about the URI being scannable is helpful but not parameter-specific.

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 returns wallet address, URI, nonce, and optional amount/memo. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like t2000_pay and t2000_send by focusing on receiving funds, and references 't2 fund' for further context.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when the user wants to receive a payment, create a payment request, or share their address for receiving funds. This provides clear guidance and implies when not to use (e.g., for sending payments).

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