radiant_broadcast_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'broadcast', implying a network write, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, failure modes, or whether it returns a transaction ID. For a broadcast operation, this is insufficient to set agent expectations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action and object, earning a 5 for conciseness and structure.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but there is no output schema and no description of the return value (e.g., txid, success flag) or potential failure conditions. An agent calling this tool has no indication of what to expect after broadcasting, making the context incomplete.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter 'raw_tx' as a signed raw transaction in hexadecimal (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond repeating the same concept, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'broadcast' and the resource 'signed raw transaction' to the Radiant network, making the core purpose evident. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like radiant_send_batch or radiant_send_rxd, but the specificity of 'signed raw transaction' implies a distinct use case. A 4 is appropriate because while clear, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., must have a signed transaction), and no indication of when not to use it. The description simply states the action without contextual usage advice, so it falls at the 'no guidance' level.

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