lightning_fund_from_btc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load well: it discloses the on-chain send, the returned txid, the non-automated claim step, and the requirement that both wallets be unlocked. It does not discuss failure modes, minimums, or irreversibility of the outbound BTC transfer.

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?

Core action and prerequisites are front-loaded and the follow-up claim step is stated compactly. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is promotional filler unrelated to funding the wallet and slightly dilutes focus.

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 fund-moving tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the critical operational facts: prerequisites, what is returned, and the required follow-up. Missing are practical failure/limit details (minimum amount, insufficient-funds behavior, fee estimation expectations).

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 both amountSats and feeRate (including the fast/medium/slow meanings) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the baseline case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (fund the Lightning wallet from the L1 BTC wallet) and clarifies the mechanism (sends BTC to the Spark deposit address, returns the L1 txid). This clearly separates it from siblings like lightning_claim_deposit and lightning_pay_invoice.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as step one of a two-step flow and warns that the deposit must be claimed afterwards (the sibling lightning_claim_deposit), plus states both unlock prerequisites. No explicit exclusions or alternatives for moving BTC elsewhere, so not a full 5.

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