send_onchain_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the entire balance is sent on-chain, but it does not mention irreversibility, fee implications, authentication needs, confirmation behavior, or what happens if the address is invalid or the wallet is empty.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler text. It states the operation and its sweep semantics immediately.

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?

This is a high-risk financial mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description identifies the operation but omits critical context such as irreversibility, fee behavior, and whether fee estimation should precede the sweep, leaving the definition under-specified for safe invocation.

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 wallet_id, address, memo, and speed are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the high-level 'entire balance' scope and does not need to explain the individual parameters, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Send the entire wallet balance on-chain to a Bitcoin address (sweep).' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling send_onchain by emphasizing that the entire balance is swept rather than a specified amount.

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 implied by '(sweep)' and 'entire wallet balance,' suggesting this is for draining a wallet rather than sending a partial amount. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives such as send_onchain or estimate_onchain_fee, and no preconditions or warnings.

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