Прямая оплата картой

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral constraint—the cryptogram must be generated client-side and cannot be assembled on the server—which is essential for correct usage. However, it does not mention any other behavioral aspects such as side effects, reversibility, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool. The key prerequisite is disclosed, but the description falls short of full transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the most critical constraint (cryptogram cannot be server-generated). It wastes no words and efficiently conveys the prerequisite and the fallback option. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, low schema coverage), the description covers only the cryptogram prerequisite. It does not explain other parameters, expected response, error handling, or idempotency. For a payment mutation tool, this is significantly incomplete; an agent would need to infer much from schemas and external knowledge.

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 only 22%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already states for cardCrypto (which is already described as coming from the client script). The other required parameters (amount, currency, ip) are not explained in the description. Given the low coverage and the lack of parameter elaboration, this dimension is weak.

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 performs direct card payment using a cryptogram. It specifies the verb (оплата) and resource (картой по криптограмме), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling wata_acq_link_create by stating the alternative when no cryptogram exists. This unambiguously differentiates it from other payment tools like SBP and TPay.

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: use this tool when you already have a cryptogram, and if not, use the payment link (wata_acq_link_create). It names the alternative tool directly and gives the condition that selects it, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.

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