compose_dispense

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the verb 'compose' implying it creates a transaction without broadcasting. This is adequate but not especially informative beyond 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 concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose without any wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate. It identifies the purpose and relies on the detailed schema for parameter guidance. Missing some context like broadcasting flow, but 'compose' implies the natural workflow.

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 is well-described (e.g., quantity in satoshis, fee rate examples). The description itself does not add parameter details, so it relies on the schema, which is sufficient.

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 tool composes a transaction to buy from a dispenser by sending BTC. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling compose tools like compose_dispenser, which likely creates or updates a dispenser.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when buying from a dispenser. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough among siblings that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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