اتصال کیف‌پول دریافت به فروشگاه

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a mutation gated on explicit user approval, and it warns that secrets (private key / recovery phrase) must never be supplied — a real safety-relevant trait the schema cannot express. It stops short of describing what happens to a previously connected wallet or any failure/limits.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action first and the safety warnings immediately after. Every sentence carries distinct 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical decision factors (approval gate, secret-handling prohibition). It omits what the call returns and whether it overwrites an existing wallet binding, which is the main remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains publicValue (public address or xpub, never secrets), confirm (only true after user approval), and implies storeId via 'the selected store'. Only asset is left unexplained, but its 13-value enum of tickers is self-describing.

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 states a specific verb+resource: validates a public address/xpub and connects it to the selected store. This implicitly separates it from theypaid_validate_wallet (validation only) and theypaid_update_wallet, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives one concrete precondition — set confirm to true only after the user approves — and a prohibition on entering private keys or seed phrases. But it never says when to choose this over theypaid_validate_wallet or theypaid_update_wallet, or what to do about an existing wallet connection.

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