Send Qi to a Payment Code (Two-Step Confirmation)

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description carries the burden of explaining actual behavior. It does this thoroughly: two-step confirmation, preview requiring no password, confirm signing and sending, and the important caveat that preview cannot verify balance so confirm can fail despite a clean preview. No contradiction with annotations.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place. The core distinction (payment code vs plain address) is front-loaded, then the privacy rationale and two-step flow are explained compactly. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a non-obvious confirmation workflow.

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 having no output schema and 8 parameters, the description covers what an agent needs: wallet prerequisites, recipient payment code origin, destination zone relevance, the exact two-step call sequence, and the insufficient-funds failure mode. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful workflow semantics beyond the schema: it explains how confirm, confirmationToken, and password relate to the two-step preview/confirm pattern, and it reinforces that amount is in Qi. This exceeds the baseline without duplicating the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Send Qi from a wallet ... to a recipient's BIP-47 payment code.' It explicitly distinguishes this tool from sending to a plain address, which separates it from siblings like send_transaction. It also ties the payment code to get_qi_payment_code, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: use this for Qi peer-to-peer transfers to a payment code, not a plain address. It also names sibling tools with the same two-step pattern (send_transaction, convert_qi_to_quai) and explains the preview-then-confirm workflow, including when password and confirmationToken are required.

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