create_payment_order

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 a payment order, implying a write operation, but doesn't describe what happens upon creation (e.g., returns an order ID, triggers a payment flow), error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by a structured list of parameters. Each parameter explanation is brief and relevant. There's no wasted text, though the formatting as a simple list could be slightly improved for readability.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks behavioral details like error handling or authentication. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but other contextual gaps remain, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for all 8 parameters (e.g., 'Unique request ID (UUID recommended)', 'Order amount (e.g., "100.00")'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't cover details like format constraints (e.g., URL validation for success_url) or the implications of null defaults, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 a new payment order in Infini, providing a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('payment order'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_payment_order' or 'list_payment_orders' by focusing on creation rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation-like tools like 'reissue_order_token' or 'withdraw_funds' beyond the name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'reissue_order_token' or 'withdraw_funds'. The only implied usage is for creating payment orders, but no contextual boundaries are defined.

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