prepare_transactions_kaspa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it states the operation is a prepare-only step (returns an unsigned transaction, no signing), discloses the return shape (unsigned tx + fee details), and surfaces cost (60 credits for native-coins). It omits auth requirements, funding prerequisites, and failure behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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-loads purpose and workflow in the first three sentences, then organizes actions and credits as labeled lists. The credits disclaimer boilerplate is slightly verbose but informative; overall well-structured with little waste.

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 9-parameter mutation-preparation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it builds, what it returns, the follow-up signing/broadcast steps, and cost. Missing prerequisites (funded UTXOs, address ownership) and error/edge-case handling, but adequate given full schema coverage.

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%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters (exactFee, locktime, recipients, feePriority, fromAddress, prepareStrategy, etc.). The description adds only the action's meaning ('native KAS transfer, supporting multiple recipients'), which is redundant with the schema's recipients description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Build unsigned Kaspa transactions ready for signing') and enumerates the single supported action (native-coins) with its behavior. It clearly scopes to Kaspa, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling prepare_transactions_* chain variants, relying on the tool name and the 'Kaspa' mention to disambiguate.

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?

It gives a clear end-to-end workflow: prepare here, then 'sign locally (kaspa_sign) and broadcast via broadcast_signed_transaction', naming the two follow-up tools. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or how it relates to the other prepare_transactions_* tools for other chains.

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