Создать платёжную ссылку

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the response contains a 'url' field that can be passed to the payer, and states limits on amount and expiration. It does not mention side effects beyond creation, potential errors, or authentication details beyond the token. This is moderate coverage, but not comprehensive, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a concise 4-sentence paragraph that front-loads the primary action, then explains token behavior, response content, and constraints. There is no redundancy or filler, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit sections, but it is efficient and readable.

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 15 parameters, including a nested subscription object, and no output schema, the description provides only high-level context: limits, response field 'url', and token-terminal relationship. It does not explain interactions between parameters, error semantics, or the full response structure. While the schema descriptions handle parameter meanings, an agent might still be uncertain about edge cases (e.g., how arbitrary amount settings interact), so completeness is moderate.

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 all 15 parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds extra constraints for amount (minimum 10 RUB/1 USD/EUR) and expiration (10 minutes to 30 days), which are not in the schema. However, it does not add meaning for other complex parameters like subscription or arbitraryAmountPrompts. Since the schema already covers the basics, and the description adds some value, a 3 is warranted.

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 verb ('создаёт' - creates) and resource ('платёжную ссылку' - payment link), and adds distinguishing context: it works via the public API and uses the token to identify the terminal, which differentiates it from sibling tools like wata_link_create. It also mentions the response field 'url' that can be given to the payer, further clarifying the tool's exact role.

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 gives implicit usage guidance: it indicates the token determines the terminal and that the link is created via the public API, implying this is for ACQ terminal operations. It also provides constraints (amount, lifetime) that guide when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool versus similar siblings like wata_link_create, so it falls short of a 5.

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