verify_webhook_signature

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 describes what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, performance, or side effects. For a verification tool with security implications, this is a significant gap in 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the tool's purpose followed by a clear, bullet-like list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 that there is an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a verification tool with no annotations and security relevance, it lacks context on error cases or operational details. The parameter explanations are helpful, but overall completeness is moderate due to missing behavioral insights.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose and provides a default behavior for 'webhook_secret' ('uses INFINI_SECRET_KEY if not provided'), which is not evident from the schema alone. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Verify webhook signature from Infini.' It specifies the verb ('verify') and resource ('webhook signature'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are all payment-related, so this stands alone in purpose.

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 lists parameters but doesn't explain the context, prerequisites, or scenarios for invocation. Without such information, users must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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