buy_credits

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: returns Stripe Checkout link for card or deposit address+payment_intent_id for crypto, explains two-step crypto confirmation, and states the call consumes no credits. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured: opens with purpose and free note, then bullet points for two payment methods with clear steps. Every sentence adds meaningful information. It is appropriately sized for the complexity and front-loads the key action.

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 complexity (payment flows, multiple methods), the description is complete. It covers both methods end-to-end, including return values, follow-up actions (check_balance, second buy_credits call), and the free nature. No gaps remain for agent understanding.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context beyond schema: explains the workflow for each parameter (e.g., payment_intent_id used to confirm crypto payment), defaults, minimum amount, and the two payment method flows. This extra guidance raises it above baseline.

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 buys credits for the edge library and AI research, with specific verb 'buy' and resource 'credits'. It distinguishes two payment methods (card and crypto) and mentions the default minimum of $5. This fully defines the tool's purpose and differentiates it from siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance by detailing two payment methods with step-by-step instructions. It suggests crypto for autonomous scenarios and card for human-in-loop, and references check_balance as a follow-up. The 'Free — no credits consumed' note further clarifies usage context. This is thorough guidance.

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