zunivo_create_payment_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that anyone with the link can pay (a public access model) and that it returns the pay URL and order ID. This goes beyond the schema, though it does not mention side effects like persistence or authentication requirements.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. The first sentence explains what and how; the second states the return value. Every phrase earns its place, making it 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 no output schema, the description appropriately specifies return values (pay URL and order id). It covers the core behavior, but lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., whether the recipient must be a valid .agent) or the lifecycle of the order. Still, for a simple create operation, it is reasonably complete.

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 67% (to and amount have descriptions, memo does not). The description reinforces the meaning of 'to' and 'amount' in the context of the payment link, but it does not clarify 'memo' at all, leaving a gap. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for the missing memo documentation.

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: 'Create a Zunivo payment link (invoice)' with a specific verb and resource. It explains the key functionality (anyone can pay USDC to a .agent name or 0x address) and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are about listing, resolving, fetching, and checking statuses.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (when you need to create a payment link for someone to pay), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The unique creation purpose among siblings makes the usage context obvious, but explicit guidance is missing.

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