create_invoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about what the call returns (invoice/payment request), that invoices expire, whether it requires an existing wallet, or that status must be polled/subscribed separately via the sibling tools.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. Slight redundancy in restating the satoshi unit already covered by the schema, but no padding.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much out: no return value, no expiry semantics beyond the schema default, and no routing among the three create_invoice variants.

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 baseline is 3. The description's unit note ('Amount is in satoshis') duplicates the schema's own 'Amount in satoshis to receive', and it adds nothing about memo, expires_in, or external_id.

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 (create a Lightning invoice) plus the key scope constraint: a fixed amount received into a BTC wallet. The phrase 'specific amount' implicitly separates it from create_invoice_no_amount, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring it.

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?

Usage is only implied: a fixed satoshi amount for a BTC wallet suggests 'use this when the amount is known and denominated in BTC.' It never mentions create_invoice_usd or create_invoice_no_amount, nor any prerequisites (wallet existence, expiry behavior), which are exactly the forks an agent faces here.

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