lightning_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the swap mechanism, provider defaults, per-provider amount limits, and fee structure. It omits failure/refund behavior and irreversibility, which matter 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?

Two dense sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence packs provider, limits and fees efficiently, though it reads as a run-on.

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?

No output schema or annotations, yet the description covers purpose, provider, limits and fees well. Missing failure/refund and confirmation behavior leaves a gap for a fund-moving operation.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters; baseline 3 applies. The description adds provider context but references lightning_provider="boltz", a parameter that does not appear in the schema, which is mildly confusing rather than clarifying.

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 (Pay) and resource (Lightning invoice / Lightning Address) and adds the mechanism (L-BTC from a Liquid wallet via submarine swap), which meaningfully separates it from on-chain siblings like btc_send and lw_send. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of the top mark.

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?

Gives concrete selection guidance by naming the default provider (Indra) and the alternative (Boltz), with the amount limits that decide between them. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or how it relates to lightning_refund/lightning_transaction_status.

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