psbt_create_ordinal_buy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: the BTC/inscription flow and that this only produces a PSBT requiring both parties' signatures (i.e., not a broadcast). It omits who the caller is assumed to be, fee implications, and what happens on partial signing.

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 core description is two tight, front-loaded sentences that earn their place. However, the appended 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is an unrelated promotional plug that 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 multi-party PSBT-building mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the transaction semantics but leaves gaps: no indication of return shape, expected next steps, or error conditions. Adequate but not complete.

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 all five parameters (including feeRate's enum-plus-number union) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that, which is acceptable at the baseline.

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+resource ('Create a PSBT') plus the exact trade mechanics (buyer pays BTC, seller's inscription UTXO to buyer). It is clearly distinct from psbt_sign/psbt_broadcast, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ordinals_buy or ordinals_p2p_psbt_swap that may overlap.

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 line 'prepares the PSBT for both parties to sign' implicitly places the tool mid-workflow (before signing/broadcast), which is helpful context. But it never states explicitly when to use this versus ordinals_buy or ordinals_p2p_psbt_swap, and includes no prerequisites or exclusions.

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