l402-redeem-cashu

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals an important behavioral trait: it automatically handles the two-step flow of creating an invoice then redeeming the token. It also clarifies that the tool only works against toll-booth servers. It does not detail the destructive consumption of the Cashu token, but destructiveHint=true already signals the mutation risk.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. The only minor inefficiency is repeating the toll-booth-server constraint in both the first and final sentences.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main selection criteria, the target server type, and the internal two-step flow. It does not specify return values or post-redemption behavior, but the annotations and simple parameter surface make this a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual flow details but no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Redeem Cashu ecash tokens directly on a toll-booth server', and adds a clear differentiator by noting it avoids the Lightning round-trip. It also closes with a scope limitation ('Only works with toll-booth servers'), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like l402-pay or l402-fetch.

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 gives useful context for when to choose this tool: it is for direct Cashu redemption on toll-booth servers, avoids Lightning, and automates the two-step flow. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state 'use X instead', but the toll-booth-only constraint and direct-vs-Lightning framing provide adequate selection guidance.

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