pay_lightning_nwc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing any behavioral traits such as the need for a connection URI, timeout behavior, failure modes, or whether the payment is irreversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap that could lead an agent to misuse it.

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 a single, succinct sentence that clearly communicates the core action. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words. However, it may be too terse to be helpful beyond a basic understanding, but conciseness is not the issue – it is the lack of substance that hurts the overall score.

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 the complexity of a payment tool (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain when to use this tool versus pay_with_nwc, does not disclose behavioral details, and does not clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. An agent would have to infer too much from the tool name and schema.

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% – every parameter (nwcUri, invoice, timeoutMs, amountMsat) has a description in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so it does not improve upon the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 a specific action ('Pay'), a specific resource ('BOLT-11 Lightning invoice'), and the mechanism ('NIP-47 Nostr Wallet Connect'). This is precise and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'pay_with_nwc', which could be a broader or alternative payment tool. The name itself ('lightning_nwc') and the BOLT-11 specificity hint at a difference, but no explicit distinction is made.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of conditions, exclusions, or when a sibling tool like 'pay_with_nwc' would be more appropriate. An agent receives no contextual hints for tool selection.

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