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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it falls short: 'paid resource' implies spending sats but the description never states that the call may automatically pay an invoice, what the cost or limits are, whether credentials/macaroons are needed, or how failures surface. For a tool with monetary side effects this is a serious omission.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste and the key noun (L402, paid) up front. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification for a payment-bearing operation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description omits the crucial context for a payment-capable fetch: automatic payment behavior, cost exposure, and failure modes. Given no annotations and a money-spending operation, the definition is incomplete for correct 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% (url, body, method are each documented, including the GET default), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or auth-header meaning beyond what the schema already supplies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a paid resource protected by L402'), which is clearly distinct from invoice/transaction siblings like make_invoice or pay_invoice. However, it assumes the reader knows what L402 is and never explains the payment-auth flow it implies, leaving the mechanism opaque.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as pay_invoice or a plain HTTP fetch. The agent cannot tell from the text whether this tool auto-negotiates and settles the L402 invoice or simply fails on a 402 response.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether conversion uses real-time rates, incurs network calls, or has side effects. This omission could lead to misuse.

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 sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but could include more contextual structure while remaining concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to mention any conversion semantics (e.g., exchange rate source, real-time vs fixed). For a simple tool, this lack of context reduces completeness.

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 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions (currency with example, amount as number). The description adds no additional meaning, so baseline score applies.

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 ('Convert') and the resource ('fiat amounts to sats'), making the purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from siblings like pay_invoice or get_balance, as none perform conversion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or common scenarios. Without context, an agent cannot decide if this is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations provided. The description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, latency, or required authentication. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to add any transparency beyond the obvious.

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?

One short sentence with no extraneous text. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without being verbose.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimal but may be sufficient if the output schema details the return format. However, it lacks context about wallet connection state, units, or error scenarios, leaving room for improvement.

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?

Zero parameters, input schema has 100% coverage. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'balance of the connected lightning wallet'. Distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on other wallet operations like transactions or invoice management.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For a simple zero-parameter tool this is somewhat acceptable, but the description provides no context about prerequisites (e.g., wallet must be connected) or scenarios where it is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope of data returned (wallet capabilities, wallet info, node info), which is useful, but it does not state permissions, side effects, or that it is a safe read operation beyond the implicit 'get'.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary subject (NWC capabilities) before the broader general 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return fields, and there are no parameters to document. The definition is sufficient for a simple, no-argument discovery call, though a note on when to use it would round it out.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless call.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and a concrete resource: NWC capabilities plus general wallet/node information. It is more specific than the generic name 'get_info' implies, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like get_balance or get_wallet_service_info.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives. An agent is left to infer that this is the entry-point/discovery call, and nothing tells it whether it should be invoked before or after tools like get_balance or make_invoice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has any side effects, nor does it mention potential network calls or authentication requirements.

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, well-front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word adds value.

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 no parameters and a known output schema, the description is sufficient. It identifies the output categories (capabilities, encryption, notification types) and implies the context (connected lightning wallet). Could be enhanced with a note on typical use, but it is largely 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the baseline rule, this warrants a score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves NWC capabilities, supported encryption, and notification types of the connected lightning wallet. It specifies a distinct resource (wallet service info) and uses a specific verb ('Get'), differentiating it from siblings like get_balance or get_info.

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 provides no guidance on when or when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. It simply states what the tool does without context for selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no default limit/offset, no sort order, no pagination behavior, and no indication of what 'connected wallet' implies for auth or scope. It only asserts that listing and filtering are possible, which the schema largely already implies.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the resource and the filtering capabilities up front. It is efficiently sized for a simple list operation, though it is thin rather than optimally informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema documents the parameters. However, with no annotations and a 6-parameter paginated list tool, the description omits default limit/offset behavior and result ordering, leaving gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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 reported schema description coverage is 0%, but the schema itself does carry per-property descriptions for all six parameters, so the structured fields do the heavy lifting. The description only loosely maps to three of them ('time, type, and limit') and says nothing about offset or the unpaid flag, adding little beyond the schema.

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 ('List all transactions from the connected wallet'), making the tool's function immediately clear against invoice-oriented siblings like make_invoice and pay_invoice. It does not explicitly name a sibling it competes with, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative tool named. The phrase 'with optional filtering' hints at how to narrow results but gives no conditions for choosing this tool over siblings such as get_balance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Look up' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description never states that it is non-mutating, whether it requires wallet/auth context, whether it hits a remote node, or what happens when the invoice does not exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the two lookup keys are given in the first few words. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input surface is small. The gap is that for a lookup keyed by two optional fields, the description never resolves the both-provided / neither-provided cases, which is the main decision an agent must make here.

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 reported at 0%, but the description does name both accepted arguments ('a BOLT-11 invoice or payment hash'), mapping 2 of 2 parameters and implying they are alternative ways to identify the same invoice. It does not say which takes precedence if both are supplied, nor that at least one is required despite required_parameters being empty.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Look up lightning invoice details'), so the operation itself is unambiguous, and it identifies the accepted inputs. However, it does nothing to separate itself from the sibling parse_invoice, which an agent could reasonably reach for on the same BOLT-11 string.

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 implies usage by naming the two accepted input modes, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over parse_invoice, pay_invoice, or request_invoice, and no prerequisite or exclusion is given. The agent must infer the routing decision from names alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not say whether the invoice is returned immediately, whether it requires inbound liquidity, how expiry defaults behave, or what the resulting invoice lifecycle is. Only the bare mutation intent ('create') is conveyed.

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?

It is a single front-loaded phrase with zero padding, which is structurally clean, but it is sized far below what a creation tool with five parameters needs. Brevity here reads as under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still omits usage routing, invoice-lifecycle context, and any parameter hints for a low-coverage schema. For a creation tool in a wallet with several overlapping invoice siblings, this is inadequate.

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 reported at 20%, so the description should compensate but does not mention any of the five parameters. In particular the distinction between 'description' and 'description_hash' and the units/behavior of 'expiry' are left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Create a lightning invoice'), which is better than a tautology. However, it fails to differentiate from the sibling request_invoice, which plausibly also produces an invoice, leaving the agent unable to choose between them from the text alone.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus request_invoice or pay_invoice, no prerequisites (e.g. wallet balance, node connectivity), and no context about the intended flow. The text gives no usage guidance at all.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement of whether parsing is offline-only, whether it validates signature/expiry, what errors occur on malformed input, or whether it touches the network. 'Parse' implies a read, but that is inference, not disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than maximally earning its brevity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and this is a low-complexity single-param tool. Still, for a decode tool the description omits any validation/error behavior, leaving a gap given the absence of annotations.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('the bolt11 invoice'), so the schema already defines the input. The description adds no format details (prefix, encoding, expected length) beyond the schema, making the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (parse) and resource (BOLT-11 lightning invoice), so the agent knows this decodes an invoice rather than creating or paying one. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the similarly-invoice-oriented siblings (make_invoice, pay_invoice, lookup_invoice, request_invoice), but the verb choice is distinct enough to infer separation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the other invoice tools (make_invoice, lookup_invoice, pay_invoice) or any prerequisite such as the invoice being signed/valid. The agent must infer usage from the verb alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Pay a lightning invoice' implies an irreversible financial mutation but says nothing about balance requirements, fee handling, routing, or whether the operation can be undone; this is a major omission for a payment 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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The sentence is structurally clean, though its brevity contributes to the under-specification penalized in other dimensions.

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 payment mutation with no annotations and only 33% schema description coverage, the description omits essential context: prerequisites, amount semantics, and safety behavior. The output schema covers return values, but the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool safely and correctly.

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 schema supplies some parameter documentation, especially for 'amount_in_sats' and its zero-amount caveat, but the description adds no parameter meaning at all. With schema description coverage at only 33%, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented or underspecified parameters such as metadata.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Pay') with a specific resource ('lightning invoice'), so the action is immediately clear. It does not differentiate this tool from sibling invoice tools such as make_invoice, lookup_invoice, parse_invoice, or request_invoice, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated. It does not explain when an agent should pay an invoice versus create, look up, or parse one, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read/write operation, whether the invoice expires, what authentication or wallet connection is required, or any rate limits. For a financial request operation this is a notable 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?

Single short sentence, front-loaded and free of waste. Concise, though perhaps too sparse given the operation's financial nature.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. However for a financial mutation with no annotations and minimal description, the definition lacks behavioral context (expiry, auth, consequences) that an agent needs to invoke safely.

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 50%; the description adds nothing beyond the required params beyond what the schema already states. Descriptions on amount_in_sats and lightning_address exist in the schema, but payer_data and the top-level description parameter are less clearly useful beyond schema text.

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?

Specific verb (Request) and resource (invoice) with the source mechanism (lightning address). Distinguishable from sibling make_invoice, though the description does not explicitly contrast the two, leaving some ambiguity about which to choose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the closely related make_invoice or pay_invoice siblings. No prerequisites, no wallet-type conditions stated. Agent must infer usage context.

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