pay_cashu_nutzap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It does state the payment sends eCash and respects guardrails, but for a money-moving operation it omits consequences like irreversibility, prerequisites, failure modes, and the quote-invoice path when cashuToken is omitted.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and payment type and ending with the guardrail constraint. Every phrase contributes useful information.

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 full schema coverage, the tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the agent is left without return-value, error, or prerequisite details. For a side-effecting payment tool, the description should at least point to guardrail checks or clarify the no-token quote 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?

All five parameters have schema descriptions, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description only adds high-level context (eCash, Nostr recipient, guardrails) and does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for 100% coverage.

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 names a specific action, 'Send', and a precise resource: an eCash NutZap payment via NIP-61 to a Nostr recipient. The eCash/NutZap phrasing differentiates it from sibling Lightning payment tools like pay_lightning_nwc.

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 provides clear context for when this tool applies: eCash NutZap payments to Nostr recipients, with guardrail limits enforced. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the payment rail is enough to route an agent away from the Lightning siblings.

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