lightning_claim_deposit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it explains that the tool fetches a signed quote from the SSP, submits the claim, returns credited sats plus a Spark transfer id, and requires an unlocked wallet. It stops short of covering failure modes or idempotency if the deposit was already claimed.

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 front-loaded with the core action, prerequisites, process, and return values. The trailing earning_opportunities tip is peripheral to invoking this tool, but the overall wording remains efficient.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the necessary context: prerequisites, confirmation requirement, unlocked-wallet requirement, SSP quote behavior, and return values. An agent has enough information to know when and how to call it correctly.

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 both transactionId and outputIndex are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 states a specific action and resource: claiming a confirmed BTC L1 deposit into the Spark Lightning wallet. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling lightning_fund_from_btc by naming it as the required precursor step.

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?

It gives explicit timing conditions: call after lightning_fund_from_btc and after the on-chain transaction has 3 confirmations. It also notes the wallet must be unlocked, though it does not name alternatives for what to do if those conditions are not yet met.

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