get_sports_payment_proof

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses that the tool costs nothing, uses a zero-value transfer, signs with the facilitator's own settler key, recovers via the production EIP-712 domain, and actually broadcasts on-chain. It also states a limitation (it does not prove your own wallet balance or allowance). It does not mention rate limits, required authentication, or whether repeated calls create repeated on-chain transactions, which keeps it short of 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 purpose statement is front-loaded in the first line, and the descriptive detail follows. The text is efficient for the amount of mechanism explained, though a couple of phrases ("proving the exact rails a real sportsbook bet travels right now") are decorative rather than informative.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry both, and it enumerates the returned fields and the on-chain side effect. Combined with the caveat about wallet balance, an agent has enough to call this correctly, with only auth/rate-limit behavior left unstated.

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 supply the meaning, and it does: league and team are described as optional context labels with concrete examples ("nfl", "packers"). That tells an agent both optionality and that they are cosmetic/metadata rather than functional filters, which is the key thing to know.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it runs a zero-value shadow settlement on Base to prove the sports-bet x402 payment rail is live, and it lists the artifacts returned (typed data, signature, recovered signer, tx hash, BaseScan receipt). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names the adjacent tools an agent might confuse it with, such as check_facilitator_liveness, check_payment_readiness, or get_sports_payment_telemetry, so the distinction from those siblings 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?

The description gives a clear use condition: run it before risking a real bet, and it also states a boundary condition, that it does not verify your own wallet balance or allowance. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling tool like check_facilitator_liveness or get_sports_payment_telemetry, so there is no explicit exclusion or alternative routing.

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