ساخت فاکتور در TheyPaid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a mutating operation, that it returns a real paymentLink, and that a timed-out request should be checked against invoice list/details before retrying, which is useful safety context. However, it omits permission/auth requirements, idempotency guarantees, and whether retries risk duplicate invoices.

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 purpose, followed by usage constraints and timeout guidance. Every sentence adds operational value with no filler.

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, no output schema, six undocumented parameters, and no schema descriptions, the description is only partially complete. It covers purpose, explicit-request gating, assetId sourcing, and timeout recovery, but leaves most parameter semantics and auth/idempotency behavior unexplained.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains where to get assetId and does not clarify the meaning or expected format of amountInTether, acceptToleranceInTether, requiredConfirmations, redirectUrl, or description.

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 and resource: it creates an invoice via TheyPaid Merchant API and returns its real paymentLink. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling theypaid_create_payment_link, even though both appear related to payment links.

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 concrete usage conditions: execute only on explicit user request, and first obtain assetId from the store's active assets. It also provides a timeout recovery procedure. It does not name alternative tools or explain when to choose another sibling instead.

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