broadcast_transaction

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the irreversible/submitting nature. The description adds minor context ('via the Counterparty node') and notes the transaction must be signed, but does not disclose failure behavior or return value expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 redundant wording. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, annotations present), the description is adequate but lacks some context. There is no mention of expected output (e.g., transaction hash) or any post-broadcast behavior, which would be useful given no output schema. The destructive nature is covered by annotations.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add significant detail beyond the schema—it only restates that the transaction is signed, which aligns with the parameter description 'Signed raw transaction hex'.

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 ('Broadcast'), the resource ('a signed Bitcoin transaction'), and the destination network ('via the Counterparty node'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling compose_* tools which create transactions, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied but not explicit: the description suggests broadcast after signing, and the sibling tools include compose_* functions that produce raw transactions. However, there is no direct statement of when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria.

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