get_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a key behavioral trait: sensitive values are masked. This prevents an agent from expecting secret values in the output. The verb 'get' plus the tool's nature imply a read-only operation, covering the most relevant behavioral aspects.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose and a usage context with no redundancy or filler. The primary function is front-loaded, and the secondary sentence adds meaningful guidance without bloating the description.

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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (the configuration), the critical masking behavior, and when to use it. An agent has all necessary information to invoke the tool correctly without further assumptions.

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 and the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter-specific details because there are none to add. The baseline score of 4 for a parameterless tool applies appropriately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('current Crypto Payer configuration'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from its payment/webhook/URL siblings by focusing on configuration, so there is no ambiguity about which operation is performed.

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 explicitly states its utility for debugging and verifying environment setup, giving a concrete when-to-use context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the tool's unique purpose among siblings makes exclusions unnecessary. This is clear context, just not a full when/where-not breakdown.

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