payway_purchase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions that the return format depends on payment_option, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., creating a transaction), required authentication, rate limits, or how the response structure varies. The description is too sparse to give an agent a realistic sense of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the return-format note. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail. It is efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. It earns a 4 for being appropriately sized for its minimal content.

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 (22 parameters, nested objects, multiple enums, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to set up a transaction, which fields are required, how payment_option affects behavior, or what the returned HTML/JSON contains. An agent would need to guess or refer to external docs, making this insufficient for correct usage.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate by explaining key parameters. It does not. The only parameter indirectly mentioned is payment_option (via the return format), but it does not explain its enum values or how to choose them. Required parameters (tran_id, amount) are not described, nor are nested objects like items or payout. The description adds almost no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 (Create a PayWay Purchase transaction) and specifies the checkout types (redirect/QR/deeplink) and return format (HTML/JSON). This distinguishes it from siblings like payway_generate_qr or payway_create_payment_link, though it does not explicitly name them. The verb and resource are specific, so it avoids being a tautology.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., payway_generate_qr, payway_create_payment_link, payway_check_transaction). It does not state conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving an agent to infer that this is for purchase transactions without clarity on when other tools are more appropriate.

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