radiant_send_rxd

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool fetches UTXOs, selects coins, builds, signs, and broadcasts the transaction, which clearly signals a mutating, on-chain operation. It also notes the WIF requirement. It does not mention irreversibility, insufficient-funds errors, or the return format, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Send RXD (photons) to an address'). It packs the entire pipeline and the key prerequisite into a compact, scannable format with zero waste. The structure is efficient and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

This is a complex transaction tool with 6 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the overall process and the WIF requirement, but it omits the return value (likely a transaction ID), error conditions (e.g., insufficient balance, rejected fee), and how the fee_per_byte and change_address parameters affect the operation. For a tool of this complexity, these gaps are notable and could leave an agent uncertain about expected outcomes.

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 every parameter (wif, key_alias, fee_per_byte, change_address, etc.). The description adds minimal value beyond that – it reiterates the WIF requirement and the photon unit, which are already in the schema. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear, specific action: sending RXD (photons) to an address. It goes further to outline the internal pipeline (fetch UTXOs, select coins, build, sign, broadcast), which distinguishes it from siblings like radiant_broadcast_transaction (broadcast only) or radiant_build_transaction (build only). The verb 'Send' plus the resource 'RXD' and the address make the purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description gives clear context: it sends RXD (not tokens), and it explicitly requires a WIF private key, which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention exclusions, such as using radiant_transfer_token for token transfers or radiant_send_batch for multiple recipients, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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