create_crypto_beneficiary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states a create operation but does not disclose response format, idempotency, duplicate handling, authorization requirements, or any side effects beyond creation. This is a significant gap for a mutation.

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 concise: a single sentence, a required-field list, and a code example. Every element is purposeful, and the front-loaded purpose makes it easy to scan.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only provides required fields and an example. It omits the return value, possible errors, and any special behavior, leaving an agent uncertain about the outcome after 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?

The schema already has 100% parameter coverage. The description adds value with a concrete JSON example, providing sample values for accountNumber, currency, and network, which clarifies expected formats. It also lists required fields, though these are already in the schema.

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 'Create a new crypto wallet beneficiary using TropiPay API,' with a specific verb and resource. The 'crypto wallet' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_external_beneficiary and create_internal_beneficiary.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling beneficiary tools. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, only lists required parameters, which is not usage guidance.

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