send_raw_transaction

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses irreversible nature ('cannot be reversed'), real-world impact ('REAL transaction'), and implementation detail ('broadcast through the Satoshi API's node'). Does not mention confirmation timing or error states.

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?

Well-structured with action first, followed by critical warnings, implementation context, then parameter definitions. The 'In hosted API mode' detail adds value but slightly interrupts flow. No wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a high-stakes transaction tool given output schema exists. Safety warnings cover irreversibility and fees. Input parameters fully documented despite empty schema. Could mention confirmation expectations, but output schema likely covers return details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, description fully compensates by documenting both parameters: hex_string is 'Signed raw transaction in hex format' and max_fee_rate includes purpose ('prevent accidental overpayment'), unit ('BTC/kvB'), and default value ('0.10').

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 specific action ('Broadcast') and resource ('signed raw transaction to the Bitcoin network'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling analytical tools like decode_raw_transaction or analyze_transaction by being the only 'send' operation.

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?

Explicit WARNING that this sends a REAL, irreversible transaction and emphasizes checking signing and fee implications. Lacks explicit naming of alternatives (e.g., decode_raw_transaction for verification), but provides clear safety context for when to use.

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