lightning_transaction_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real side effect: receive swaps auto-claim L-BTC when settled, which is a state-changing action an agent must know about before calling. It also explains that send status queries the original provider and surfaces provider/provider_status plus the preimage on claim. It omits idempotency, error/not-found behavior, and whether polling is expected.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then branching cleanly into receive and send behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 exists, so the description reasonably names the key returned fields (provider, provider_status, preimage) and explains the auto-claim outcome. For a one-parameter status tool with no annotations this is nearly complete; a little more on failure states or response shape would close the gap.

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% for the single swap_id parameter and the schema already states it comes from lightning_receive/lightning_send, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Check the status of a Lightning swap') and scopes it to send-or-receive Lightning swaps, tying the swap_id back to lightning_receive/lightning_send. It stops short of naming which sibling status tools (sideswap_swap_status, sideshift_status, changelly_status) it should not be used for, so an agent must infer the domain boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent learns the tool is for checking an existing Lightning swap and that the ID comes from lightning_receive or lightning_send, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against the many other status tools in the sibling list. Direction-specific behavior (receive vs send) is described, which helps, but selection guidance is left to inference.

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