create_invoice_usd

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 does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait — the invoice is denominated in sats but credited as USD — which is valuable. However it omits whether the invoice is single-use, what the fixed/implied expiry behavior is (schema only mentions a default), and, with no output schema, what the caller gets back (bolt11 payment request, payment hash, expiry timestamp).

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 with zero filler, and the denomination/credit distinction — the most important fact — is front-loaded.

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 mutating, money-moving tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the currency semantics well but leaves the agent guessing about the return payload and about prerequisites (must wallet_id be a USD wallet?). Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's stakes.

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 the USD-wallet constraint on wallet_id and the 5-minute USD expiry default) are already documented. The description reinforces that amount is in USD cents, matching the schema, but adds no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 with the distinguishing qualifier: a Lightning invoice denominated in USD cents (Stablesats), settled in satoshis. This implicitly separates it from create_invoice and create_invoice_no_amount, but it never names those siblings, so the agent must infer that plain create_invoice is the BTC-denominated variant.

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 by the currency qualifier — an agent can infer 'use this when you want to receive USD' but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of create_invoice/create_invoice_no_amount, and no note about required wallet type (a USD wallet_id is required per schema, but the description never says what happens with a BTC wallet).

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