send_onchain_usd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context like 'from a USD (Stablesats) wallet' (implying a conversion step) and 'Amount is in cents.' However, it omits important behavioral traits such as network fees, confirmation expectations, or whether the operation requires special permissions. Given the mutation nature and zero annotation support, this is a moderate 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?

The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the critical unit note. Every word carries meaning; there is zero redundancy or filler. This is a model of efficient description.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose but leaves several contextual gaps: no mention of return values, failure modes, or differentiation from send_onchain_all. Given the complexity and the lack of structured safety/return information, this is a minimum viable description but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 60% with descriptions for amount, address, and wallet_id. The description's 'Amount is in cents' merely repeats the schema description for amount. It does not clarify the 'memo' or 'speed' parameters, which have no descriptions in the schema. The description adds no unique parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not conflict with it.

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 action: 'Send on-chain Bitcoin from a USD (Stablesats) wallet.' It specifies the resource (USD wallet) and the destination (on-chain Bitcoin), distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_onchain (presumably from BTC wallet) and send_onchain_all. The addition of 'Amount is in cents' further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 when to use this tool: when sending on-chain Bitcoin from a USD-denominated wallet, as opposed to a regular Bitcoin wallet. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, which would make the guidance stronger. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage in typical scenarios.

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