send_onchain

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

With no annotations, the description must self-disclose. It only mentions the satoshi unit but omits critical behavioral traits such as irreversibility, fee implications (speed), and confirmation behavior. The FAST/MEDIUM/SLOW speed parameter is unexplained, and there is no warning about spending funds.

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, no redundant fluff, and the core action is front-loaded. Efficient.

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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the speed parameter, memo, or the nature of on-chain transactions (irreversibility, broadcast). It also doesn't clarify the difference from send_onchain_all or send_onchain_usd, so an agent may select the wrong tool.

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 descriptions cover wallet_id, address, and amount, and the description merely repeats the satoshi unit already present in the schema. It adds no new information about the optional memo or speed parameters, which lack schema descriptions. With 60% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('Bitcoin on-chain to a Bitcoin address'), and clarifies the amount unit (satoshis), which distinguishes it from USD or full-balance variants like send_onchain_usd/send_onchain_all.

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 implies usage for direct BTC on-chain payments but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs sibling tools like send_onchain_all, send_onchain_usd, or Lightning options. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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