pay-on-chain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions paying an on-chain address, but omits critical details such as irreversibility, transaction finality, fee estimation, or return value. The limited description adds minimal transparency beyond the tool's basic function.

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 exceptionally concise at one sentence and front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be improved by integrating additional context (e.g., output details) without increasing length significantly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description does not sufficiently explain the tool's behavior or return value. Missing information such as transaction ID output, confirmation requirements, and fee behavior makes the definition incomplete for a payment action.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool's description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'specified amount' maps to amountSat). 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 clearly states the action 'Pay' and the target resource 'on-chain address', and specifies the configurable parameters (amount and fee rate). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'pay-invoice' and 'pay-lightning-address' which handle off-chain payments.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or situations where it should be avoided. Users are left to infer context from sibling tool names alone.

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