apiosk_payment_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and non-destructive, and the description aligns (explain + return guides, no contradiction). It adds useful behaviorl context beyond annotations: output is split into buyer/provider guides, is tailored to current auth, and slug scopes guidance to one listing's price and payment steps.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, each earning its place: purpose, deliverable structure, then parameter guidance. The parentheticals are dense but justified because they specify the exact content of each guide rather than padding.

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 zero-required-param guide tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, deliverable structure, and parameter effects. Minor gaps remain: how output is structured when role defaults to 'both', and how auth-tailoring behaves without an authenticated session — but the output schema carries return-value detail.

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% — both role and slug are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates their effects ('Pass slug to scope... role to pick a side') but adds no meaning 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?

States a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('how to pay through the Apiosk gateway'), then scopes it to two concrete deliverables: a buyer guide for settling paid API calls over USDC/x402 and a provider guide for publishing an API and getting paid. This distinguishes it from generic sibling help tools like apiosk_help and apiosk_get_started by naming the exact payment mechanics covered.

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 context for use is clear — an agent needing to learn how to settle a paid call, or a provider wanting to publish and get paid — and the description explains how to tailor output via role and slug. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool versus apiosk_help or apiosk_get_started.

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