minter_fund

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: the interactive spending-authorization prompt and the blocking wait for spendability. It does not mention failure modes or that it creates an on-chain transaction, but 'top up' and 'user's own wallet' imply a real transfer of funds.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence adds crucial behavioral detail. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 state-changing operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the action, the user prompt, and the wait, but it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., transaction ID) or what happens if the user rejects the prompt. It is adequate for basic understanding but lacks some contextual depth for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.

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 the schema itself provides excellent semantics (e.g., dryRun preview vs broadcast, satoshis amount with typical guidance, splitInto with STAS context). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Top up the minter') and the source ('user's own BSV Desktop wallet'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like mint_token or minter_status. The verb-resource pairing is specific and 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?

Usage is implied: top up the minter when it needs funds before minting. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The sibling tools exist but are not referenced in the description.

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