pay_lightning_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only restates what the tool sends. It omits that this is an irreversible fund transfer, whether fees are deducted, whether there is a confirmation step, and what happens on failure. For a money-moving operation this is a meaningful gap.

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?

One tight sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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 3-required-parameter payment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about outcomes, fees, and irreversibility. It leaves the agent without enough context to invoke this confidently relative to sibling payment tools.

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 amount, wallet_id, and ln_address are already documented in the schema; the description's example merely repeats the ln_address schema text. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Send Bitcoin to a Lightning Address') with a concrete example format. An agent can distinguish it from pay_invoice, pay_lnurl, and send_onchain, though the description never names those siblings to make the routing explicit.

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 guidance on when to use this versus pay_lnurl, pay_invoice, or send_to_username, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the Lightning Address path.

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