Force a fresh ElectrumX reconnect when auto-reconnect fails and the session is wedged. Tears down the socket, clears the backoff counter, and re-handshakes.
Force a fresh ElectrumX reconnect. Use this when the auto-reconnect logic has given up (after 5 backoff attempts) and the session is wedged. Tears down the existing socket, clears the backoff counter, and re-handshakes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the full sequence of actions: tears down the socket, clears the backoff counter, and re-handshakes. This is comprehensive for a connection-reset tool.
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 sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is stated first, then the trigger condition and the mechanics are packed into the second sentence. Every word earns its place.
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 a zero-parameter tool, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully explains what the tool does, when to invoke it, and what to expect internally. No critical information is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema is trivially 100% covered, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist; there is no missing semantic burden.
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 states a specific action ('Force a fresh ElectrumX reconnect') and identifies a precise trigger condition ('when the auto-reconnect logic has given up after 5 backoff attempts and the session is wedged'). This clearly distinguishes it from other Radiant tools that focus on chain info, balances, or transactions.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool and describes the failure condition that warrants it. It implies normal auto-reconnect is preferred, giving clear decision context without needing further inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.