radiant_build_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does well: it discloses that the default behavior does not broadcast, that broadcasting can be enabled, and what outputs to expect (raw hex, fee, size). It could additionally warn about the irreversibility of broadcast mode, but the 'committing' framing partly covers this.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the core behavior ('Build and sign... WITHOUT broadcasting'), then add the use case and the critical dry_run toggle. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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, the description usefully names the return pieces (raw hex, fee, size). The rich parameter schema and the description together cover key selection, dry-run behavior, and high-value usage. Exact return shape and how to feed the raw hex into radiant_broadcast_transaction are left implicit, but the tool is still safely callable.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond restating the dry_run behavior already present in the schema, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 is specific: 'Build and sign a transaction in dry-run mode' and immediately clarifies that it returns raw hex, fee, and size 'WITHOUT broadcasting'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like radiant_broadcast_transaction and radiant_send_batch by emphasizing the no-broadcast default.

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 gives concrete context: 'Critical for high-value operations: inspect the transaction before committing' and explains how to switch to broadcasting via dry_run=false. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the intended workflow is clear.

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