Send BSV Payment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavior: fee structure (miner-only, min 200 sats), safety policy enforcement, and the guarantee that 1-sat ordinal UTXOs are never used as funding. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them. It doesn't cover all edge cases (e.g., error handling), but given annotation coverage, a 4 is appropriate.

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 well-structured: a clear lead sentence, a focused paragraph on fees and safety, then concise Args/Returns sections. It is slightly redundant with the schema for parameters, but overall it is compact and front-loaded. Every section serves a purpose, earning a 4.

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 no output schema exists, the description compensates by explicitly listing the return object { txid, satoshis, minerFee, change, transactionUrl }. It also covers prerequisites (initialized wallet), fee behavior, safety constraints, and optional OP_RETURN usage. It does not mention error cases or policy-check failure outcomes, but for a transaction tool it is fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100%—all three parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description's Args section largely repeats the schema (to, satoshis, opReturn) with no additional semantic depth. The OP_RETURN mention as a 'payment reference' is already present in the schema property description, so the description adds minimal new meaning.

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 'Send a plain BSV payment (P2PKH) from the initialized wallet,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It further distinguishes itself by calling it 'THE core tool for agent payments' and emphasizing 'plain' vs. ordinal-related transfers, setting it apart from sibling tools like ordnet_transfer and the x402 flow.

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 clear context: it is the primary tool for agent micropayments, explicitly noting 'miner fee only (0.15 sat/byte, min 200 sats), NO service fees' and optional OP_RETURN for references. It also mentions the wallet must be initialized and that spend policy is enforced. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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