send_to_lightning_address

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the protocol and action, omitting details like error handling if the address is invalid, whether the operation is reversible, or if spending policies apply (the 'agent' parameter hints at this but is not explained).

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?

Single sentence that is precise and front-loaded. No redundant information; every word serves a purpose.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally mention what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation or payment hash) or potential errors. It lacks this context, but the simplicity of the action partially mitigates the need.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are already adequate. The description does not add extra context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., the format of 'address' is already in the schema description).

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?

Description clearly states the action: sending sats to a Lightning address using LNURL-pay protocol. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pay_lightning_invoice (BOLT11) and create_lightning_invoice by specifying the protocol and address format.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pay_lightning_invoice. The phrase 'using LNURL-pay protocol' implies usage for LNURL addresses, but does not describe when not to use it or mention prerequisites (e.g., wallet setup).

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