send_onchain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies this as an on-chain send and specifies satoshi units, but it does not disclose irreversibility, fee behavior, authorization requirements, failure modes, or whether the transaction is immediate.

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 description is two short sentences and front-loads the core action. Every sentence contributes useful context without redundancy or filler.

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 financial mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits critical context such as transaction finality, fee implications, expected return behavior, and safety checks, leaving the agent under-informed before invoking a send operation.

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 the schema already documents all parameters, including amount, address, wallet_id, speed, and memo. The description reinforces that amount is in satoshis for a BTC wallet but adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 action and resource: 'Send Bitcoin on-chain to a Bitcoin address.' It clarifies amount units and BTC wallet context, making the operation distinct from Lightning sends, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools such as send_onchain_all or send_onchain_usd.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_onchain_all, send_onchain_usd, or estimate_onchain_fee. It also omits prerequisites or conditions such as ensuring sufficient balance or confirming the address.

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