تغییر کیف‌پول دریافت فروشگاه

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: validation happens before the swap, the effect is limited to future payments, a confirm gate guards the mutation, and 2FA may be demanded. It stops short of saying whether the previous address stops working immediately, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on validation failure — important gaps for an unannotated destructive write.

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 core action, then consequence, then the confirmation/2FA caveat. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant. Slightly compressed at the end where the 2FA note is stated as a bare possibility.

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 five-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics but leaves storeId and asset selection unexplained and says nothing about the return value or failure modes. It is adequate to attempt the call, not adequate to call it confidently in edge cases.

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%, so the description must compensate for all five parameters. It explains publicValue (public address or xpub), confirm (true only after user approval), and code (six-digit 2FA), but asset and storeId are only obliquely gestured at via 'the asset configured in this store' — an agent cannot tell from the text that both are explicit required/optional inputs, nor what the asset enum means.

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 compound action: validate a new public address or xpub with TheyPaid and replace the receiving wallet for the store's configured asset. That is a clear verb+resource pairing an agent can act on. It does not, however, contrast itself with close siblings such as theypaid_validate_wallet, theypaid_create_wallet, or theypaid_connect_wallet, so the boundary is left to inference.

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 real usage context: the change affects subsequent payments, and confirm must be set to true only after user approval, with a possible six-digit 2FA step. What it never says is when to choose this over the sibling wallet tools (validate/create/connect), nor what prerequisites must already hold (e.g., whether the store must be selected or the asset enabled first).

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