get_payment_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool 'returns' information, implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose potential errors, auth requirements, or any side effects. The phrase 'for tools in this server' adds a scoping dimension, yet it lacks details on output structure (though output schema covers that). This is minimal but not misleading, so a middle score is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core functionality without redundancy. Every word earns its place; it is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the low complexity (no params, read-only getter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose and scoping but could benefit from a note on when to invoke it (e.g., before using other tools) or any assumptions about network connectivity. Nevertheless, it is sufficient for a simple tool, earning a high score.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description needs no parameter explanations. Per the rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description aligns with the empty schema, and no additional meaning is required.

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 returns specific information: 'Polygon Web3 micropayment pricing and recipient details for tools in this server.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from sibling fetch tools which handle content types like web content or transcripts. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage (when you need payment info for tools), but it does not explicitly state when to call it or whether there are any prerequisites or alternatives. Since it is the only payment-related tool among siblings, the context is clear, but explicit 'use this when...' guidance is missing, giving a baseline adequate score.

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