Mint a prepaid top-up invoice

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 states it's 'Free' and explains the redemption flow, but does not detail potential failure modes, expiry, or what happens if payment isn't claimed - though the core behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with key fact 'Free', and no redundant or filler content. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, flow, and link to discovery tool. It could mention edge cases or expiration, but for a simple invoice minting tool it is fairly 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?

With only one parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description doesn't explicitly explain amount_sats beyond referring to min/max via btcmatic_discover. It implies the amount is in satoshis but doesn't add much detail, though the simple schema plus reference to limits provides moderate base.

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 the tool mints a Lightning invoice for a prepaid balance, which is a specific verb+resource action. It also references btcmatic_discover for min/max, distinguishing it from other btcmatic tools.

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?

It explains the usage flow: pay with a wallet you control, then call btcmatic_topup_claim with the preimage. It clearly contrasts with the sibling claim tool and warns that the payment hash alone never yields a token, providing contextual guidance.

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