check_spend_limit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the return format ('clear yes/no with remaining budget details') and the practical consequence ('avoid surprise queuing'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'check' implies it).

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose and return value, the second provides crucial usage guidance. No wasted words, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the purpose, return format, and usage context. However, it could be more complete by explicitly stating this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated) and mentioning any authentication requirements. The connection to 'send_payment' is excellent contextual guidance.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (it mentions 'proposed payment amount' which aligns with 'amount_eth' but provides no additional syntax or format details). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('check') and resource ('proposed payment amount'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'send_payment' as an alternative. It explains what the tool does (verifies if amount is within wallet's autonomous spend limits) and what it returns (yes/no with budget details).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this before send_payment to avoid surprise queuing'), clearly positioning it as a prerequisite check. It distinguishes from the 'send_payment' sibling by explaining the sequential relationship and purpose (avoid queuing).

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