pay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates and confirms a payment, implying a write operation, but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, idempotency, or required authentication. This is insufficient for an operation that likely involves financial transactions.

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 single sentence, which is concise. However, it does not pack much informative value beyond the tool's basic action. Every word earns its place, but the overall contribution is minimal.

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 presence of three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the payment lifecycle, confirmation semantics, or error handling. It only states the basic action, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (amount, currency, description) with 100% coverage. The description adds no new meaning beyond reiterating 'in cents' for amount, which is already in the schema. As per guidelines, with high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 creates and confirms a payment in cents. The verb 'create and confirm' and resource 'payment' are specific, and the unit 'cents' is explicitly mentioned. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'refund' or 'send_paypal', preventing a higher score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not. The description is purely functional without contextual use-case information.

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