compose_btcpay

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

The description adds minimal behavioral information beyond the annotations. It does not clarify whether 'compose' means building a transaction for later broadcast or actually sending it, nor does it mention side effects (e.g., marking the order match as paid). The openWorldHint and readOnlyHint already indicate action, but the description does not explain what the action entails or its consequences.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or filler wording. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's role.

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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not mention what the function returns (e.g., a transaction hex or a signed payment). It also lacks workflow context, such as needing a prior matched order or how to obtain the order_match_id, leaving the agent to infer these from the parameter names alone. For a DEX-related compose operation, this is a notable gap.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool's description does not add any extra parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compose') and a clear resource ('BTC payment for a matched DEX order'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also distinguishes from sibling compose_* tools by specifying the DEX order context, which is unique among the provided siblings.

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 clearly states this tool is used to complete BTC trades on the DEX, giving strong context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use compose_send for general BTC transfers'), so it falls short of a full 5.

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