List payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts not in the annotations: results are chain-derived transfers into addresses the platform issued, and they are returned newest-first with cursor pagination.

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 lines, front-loaded with the verb and the definition, then pagination. Minor waste: "newest first" is stated twice in consecutive sentences, which is redundant rather than harmful.

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?

With no output schema, the description does enough by defining what a payment record represents and how to page through results. The remaining gap is that it never signals the response is filterable by asset or invoice, so an agent may issue unfiltered or mis-scoped calls it could have narrowed.

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 coverage is 75% and `limit`, `cursor` and `invoice` are already documented in the schema; the description's cursor-pagination sentence largely restates the `cursor` field. Critically, it never mentions the `asset` enum filter, the one parameter whose schema entry carries no description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and goes further by defining what a payment is: "Transfers seen on chain into addresses we handed out." That domain definition meaningfully separates it from siblings like list_refunds or list_invoices, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 explains pagination mechanics (pass `next_cursor` back as `cursor`), which is procedural guidance, but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never mentions the available `asset` or `invoice` filters that would steer an agent's invocation. Usage is implied by the tool name and domain sentence only.

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