Get Payment Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the scope of returned data (deposit addresses, tokens, fee structure), which isn't in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format details, keeping it from a 5.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get the platform's payment configuration') and details the data scope. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given 0 parameters, rich annotations (covering read-only, non-destructive, open-world, idempotent), and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It specifies what data is returned but doesn't explain format, authentication needs, or error handling. For a configuration retrieval tool, this is minimally viable but could be more complete.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's fine here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it compensates for the lack of parameters by clearly stating what the tool retrieves, though it could briefly note 'no inputs required' for clarity.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('platform's payment configuration'), specifying what data is retrieved: deposit addresses, supported tokens, and fee structure. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on payment configuration, unlike other 'get_' tools for actions, objects, or templates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar retrieval tools (e.g., 'dual_get_organization'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), timing (e.g., before processing payments), or exclusions (e.g., not for real-time fee calculations). With many sibling tools, this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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