spraay_invoice_create

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive tool. The description adds valuable context: data persists in Supabase, the returned transaction is unsigned, and there is a cost of $0.005 USDC. This goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and includes all essential information without fluff. Every clause adds value.

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 presence of an output schema (return values not needed in description) and the 100% parameter coverage, the description covers the tool's purpose, inputs, side effects (data persistence), cost, and constraints. It is sufficient for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 does not add new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., token symbols, amount format, address patterns). The mention of 'pre-encoded ERC-20 transfer' contextualizes the parameters but doesn't add semantic detail.

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's action (create a payment invoice with a pre-encoded ERC-20 transfer), lists supported tokens (USDC, USDT, DAI, EURC, WETH) and chain (Base), mentions data persistence (Supabase), return values (invoice ID, payment instructions, unsigned tx), and cost ($0.005 USDC). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spraay_invoice_get and spraay_invoice_list.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (creating an invoice with ERC-20 token on Base) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. However, given the specificity, usage is well implied.

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