request_payment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that a new payment session is created and that authentication is required. However, it omits important payment-related behaviors such as session expiration, idempotency, duplicate session creation, or whether funds are reserved.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences with the main action front-loaded. No filler; each sentence adds value: the action, the return value, and the authentication requirement.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return value and its purpose. It could be more explicit about the surrounding workflow and error cases, but it is not missing critical call-time information.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only restates the authentication requirement without adding meaningful new details about the token format or how to obtain it.

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 core action: 'Request a new payment session' from the Crypto Payer PLATFORM. It also distinguishes itself from build_payment_url by explaining that it returns a paymentId used to construct the payment URL, not the URL itself.

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 implies the workflow order: authenticate with a user access token, receive a paymentId, then construct the payment URL. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like generate_auth_header or build_payment_url, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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