erc20_create_payment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Creates an ERC20 payment contract' without mentioning side effects (like requiring token approval), whether it is destructive, or what the return value is. This is minimal transparency.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating purpose and constraint, one providing the exact call format. No redundant words, and critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple creation tool but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., need to have approved the contract to spend tokens), return value, and post-creation steps. With no output schema and no annotations, more context would improve completeness.

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 100%, so each parameter is already described. The description adds value by providing an example call format and clarifying tokenAmount format with '1 for 1 USDC'. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 tool creates an ERC20 payment contract and explicitly distinguishes from ETH usage by stating 'ONLY for ERC20 tokens — do NOT use for ETH.' The sibling tool `eth_create_payment` confirms this differentiation.

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 explicit usage guidance: when to use (for ERC20 tokens) and when not to use (for ETH). It also gives an exact example call with parameters, making it very clear for the agent.

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