minia2a_buy_credits

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: this is a claim operation tied to an on-chain transfer rather than an in-app purchase. It explains the required workflow and outcome, though it does not detail irreversibility, duplicate submission handling, or verification requirements beyond the transfer.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action, and the second explains the necessary on-chain workflow and product constraint. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 tool's mutation-oriented nature and lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers the preconditions, action, and expected outcome. It could be even more complete with a note about what response to expect after submission or a pointer to verify resulting credits, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions for wallet and txHash. The description reinforces the workflow by connecting the transaction hash to the claiming process, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves.

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 identifies the action ('Claim credits') and the precise context: a completed USDC transfer whose transaction hash is submitted to credit a wallet. It also distinguishes this from a generic purchase by stating V5 has no in-app balance purchase, helping differentiate it from sibling tools like minia2a_credits.

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 explicit usage steps: send USDC on a supported chain to the platform wallet, then submit the transaction hash. It also states that there is no in-app purchase alternative. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or point to a sibling for related actions like checking credit balance.

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