get_payment_analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral transparency. It states the tool returns aggregates and settlement ratios, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention safety, side effects, or any requirements. It adds some context (real-time, recent histories) but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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, front-loads the core function, and contains no redundant information. Every phrase adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-oriented analytics tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, key inputs (implicitly), and output. It lacks explicit caveats or limitations but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (provider and limit), including clear descriptions and an enum for provider. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, mostly integrating the parameters into the overall narrative. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 action (aggregates) and the resource (transaction performance metrics across payment gateway accounts), with specific metrics listed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_gateway_fees (which focuses on fee comparison) and create_payment_link (which creates 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The intended use case is only implied by the function name and description.

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