compose_dispenser

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it 'Compose a transaction' and that dispensers automatically sell tokens for BTC. However, it does not disclose return format, broadcasting requirements, or side effects beyond composition.

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 main purpose and a contextual note. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks guidance on how to compose for different statuses (open vs close), return value expectations, or prerequisites. The schema covers parameter meanings, but overall contextual completeness is limited.

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 of the 9 parameters having a description. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics but the schema provides sufficient detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Compose a transaction to create, open, or close a dispenser,' which clearly identifies the tool's function and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling composition tools by specifically targeting dispensers and listing the three operations.

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 implies usage for creating, opening, or closing dispensers but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like compose_dispense or mention when not to use it. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided, so the agent must infer from the tool name.

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