xpayr_calculate_gateway_fee_and_split

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full load and does useful work: it declares determinism, offline operation, and no API-key/auth requirement, which tells an agent this is a stateless computation. It also discloses the tolerance rule (1%, max $0.50) governing one of the computed values. What it omits is any statement of the response shape or whether results are cached/persisted.

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?

It is a single dense sentence, front-loaded with the core computation, and the fee constants are genuinely useful. The competitor comparison clause (BitPay, Coinbase, NOWPayments, Stripe) is somewhat promotional padding, though it does foreshadow the savings output.

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 zero-required-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description should clarify return structure and default behavior (amount defaults to 1000, network to tron-mainnet). It lists the computed quantities, which partially substitutes for an output schema, but an agent still cannot predict the response fields or units.

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 amount, network, and currency are already documented with examples and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the fee-rate constants, which are output semantics rather than input semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Deterministically calculate XPayr flat 0.5% gateway fee split') and enumerates exactly what is computed: fee split, net merchant settlement, underpayment tolerance, and competitor cost savings. This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, which are all session/agent/webhook management tools rather than pure calculators.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Works offline without API keys' signals this is a safe side-effect-free estimator, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus, say, creating a payment session or checking merchant balance. No exclusions or preconditions (e.g., 'call before create_payment_session to preview fees') are given.

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