roamzy_payment_options

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive hints. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it is pulled live from NowPayments with a 1h cache and returns specific fields (code, display, fees_hint, recommended). This provides useful operational detail not available in annotations, though it doesn't cover all edge-case behaviors.

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence carries necessary information: a mandatory-use warning, purpose, output details, and post-call instructions. The structure front-loads the critical 'MANDATORY' caveat and flows logically through purpose, data, and usage.

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 the tool's complexity (zero parameters, but critical role in a multi-step flow), the description is complete. It covers when to use it, what it returns, how to present results, and how to proceed. An output schema exists, so the description need not repeat return schemas in detail.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details; it instead explains the output fields, which is appropriate for a no-argument tool.

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 it returns the list of stablecoin/network combinations enabled in the account, with specific examples (USDT on TRON, USDC on Solana). It distinguishes from siblings by framing itself as a prerequisite for roamzy_create_order, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'MANDATORY before roamzy_create_order whenever the user has NOT explicitly chosen a stablecoin + network.' It also dictates the follow-up behavior—asking the user and never defaulting—and states when it is not needed (when the user has already chosen).

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