نمایش فروشگاه TheyPaid

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuinely useful disclosure: the wallet address and derived public key are deliberately excluded from the response. However, it says nothing about required permissions, error behavior, or what the 'active assets' payload contains.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core purpose leads. The response caveat is appended in a natural second position, though the description is arguably under-specified rather than merely concise.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description covers only the headline purpose plus one exclusion note. It leaves unresolved which store is returned and what the asset information actually comprises.

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% and the single storeId parameter is never mentioned in the description. Since storeId is optional (required=0), the agent cannot tell whether omitting it uses a previously selected store or fails — a critical ambiguity the schema does not resolve either.

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 concrete verb+resource: reads store settings and active-asset information. That is specific enough to separate it from mutation siblings like theypaid_update_store or theypaid_set_store_active, though it never explicitly contrasts with read siblings such as theypaid_list_stores or theypaid_get_account.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus the many sibling read tools, no prerequisites (auth, connection state), and no note on what happens when storeId is omitted even though it is optional. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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