sideswap_peg_in

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool only returns an address (the user or btc_send must actually send BTC), the confirmation requirement (2 BTC confirmations), latency (~20 min hot path, up to ~17 hours cold path), and the fee. It does not cover what happens if the deposit is never made, whether the deposit address expires, or minimum deposit amounts, which are meaningful gaps for a funds-moving flow.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the return value, then the timing, then the fee trade-off, then the prerequisite — a sensible order. It is dense but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information; the repetition of the fee/wait trade-off in the last sentence is the only mild redundancy.

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?

For a multi-step funding flow with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential picture: what it returns, who sends the BTC, how long confirmation takes, and what the user ends up with (L-BTC in the Liquid wallet). Missing failure/expiry handling and minimum-amount constraints keep it short of 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 100%, and all three parameters (password, wallet_name, password_file) are documented in the schema, including the 'do not combine with password' exclusion. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema already does that job, so the baseline applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Initiate a SideSwap peg-in (BTC → L-BTC)') and immediately clarifies the direction and the return value (a Bitcoin deposit address). This distinguishes it cleanly from sideswap_peg_out and from the swap-market path (sideswap_quote / sideswap_execute_swap) without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit decision rule: prefer this over a swap-market trade for amounts ≥ ~0.01 BTC because of the 0.1% vs 0.2% fee, at the cost of waiting. It also states a prerequisite ordering ('ALWAYS call sideswap_recommend first for large amounts'), so the agent knows both when to use it and which sibling to call beforehand.

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