send_onchain_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the key behavior of sweeping the entire balance, which is a significant trait. However, it omits details about fees, irreversibility, balance requirements, or failure modes, which are particularly important for a mutating financial tool.

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, clear, and concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. It contains no redundant words or filler, and the parenthetical 'sweep' adds valuable clarification without bloat.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, including an enum, and a mutating financial action), the description is too brief to be fully complete. It lacks context about parameter usage, especially memo and speed, and does not mention return values or side effects. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the need for a more thorough description.

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 50%, with wallet_id and address described in the schema. The description adds little beyond that: 'entire wallet balance' restates the wallet_id purpose and 'Bitcoin address' restates the address purpose. It provides no insight into the memo or speed parameters, which lack schema descriptions. Thus, the description does not compensate for the parameter documentation gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Send'), resource ('entire wallet balance'), and destination ('Bitcoin address'), and the parenthetical 'sweep' reinforces the all-balance semantics. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'send_onchain' which likely send 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?

The description implies the tool is for sweeping the full wallet balance to a Bitcoin address, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like send_onchain or send_to_wallet. There is no mention of exclusions or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate, leaving the usage context implicit.

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