buy_lightning_liquidity

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses key behaviors: it opens a channel, requires a minimum $5 payment, and returns a Lightning invoice. It does not detail failure modes or timeouts, but core behavioral traits are well-covered.

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 well-structured with a header, bullet points for usage, a clear parameter list with examples, and a return section. Every sentence is informative with no fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value. It covers all parameters, usage scenarios, and the tool's purpose comprehensively. No gaps for a purchase tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds value with examples for connection_uri, clarifies minimum for usd_cents, and explains optional parameters with defaults. Exceeds baseline 3.

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 purchases inbound Lightning Network liquidity via Amboss Magma, opening a channel to the node. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from any potential siblings (none listed).

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 explicitly lists use cases: increase inbound liquidity, accept Lightning payments, open channels. While it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient given no sibling tools.

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