Прямая оплата через T-Pay

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

With no annotations, the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It only adds the currency constraint (rubles, no currency field) and the return of tPayLink. It omits side effects, error cases, idempotency, or whether the payment is reversible.

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 brief and front-loaded, which is good, but it is also thin. It could have included key details without becoming verbose, so it earns a middle score for structure.

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 payment creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain required fields, the deviceData structure, or the full response format beyond tPayLink, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 57%, yet the description adds no parameter-level details beyond noting the absence of a currency field. It does not compensate for undocumented params like email, orderId, or description, leaving agents without semantic guidance for those.

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 states a specific verb ('creates'), a resource ('payment via T-Pay'), and the return value ('tPayLink'), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling payment tools (SBP, card) by naming T-Pay 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like wata_acq_pay_sbp or wata_acq_pay_card. The description implies T-Pay is the method but does not state selection criteria or exclusions.

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