sendAnonymousZap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Prepare an anonymous zap,' implying a creation or sending action, but doesn't clarify if this requires user authentication, what happens after preparation (e.g., is it sent immediately or stored?), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and safety.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action and target, making it easy to grasp quickly. This is an excellent example of conciseness, as every word earns its place in defining the tool's intent.

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 complexity of a tool that involves financial transactions (zaps) and anonymity, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'prepare' entails (e.g., does it return a transaction ID or confirmation?), the implications of anonymity, or error handling. For a tool with potential side effects like sending money, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters (target, amountSats, comment, relays) with details like data types and constraints. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips. Since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but also doesn't detract from it.

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 action ('Prepare an anonymous zap') and the target ('to a profile or event'), which is specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'postAnonymousNote' or 'getAllZaps', which might handle similar concepts of anonymity or zaps, leaving room for confusion about when to choose this specific tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, such as needing authentication or specific contexts, nor does it compare to sibling tools like 'postNote' or 'getReceivedZaps' that might involve similar actions. This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to decide when this is the appropriate choice.

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