lightning_transaction_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It does so by noting that for receive swaps it auto-claims L-BTC when settled, and for send it checks Boltz status and retrieves preimage. This adds useful context about side effects and success criteria, though it omits details like auth requirements or error states.

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 brief sentences that front-load the purpose and efficiently detail send vs receive behavior. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy.

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 the simple single-parameter schema, no output schema, and straightforward task of checking a swap status, the description covers the essential scenarios (send and receive) with relevant behavioral details. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the single parameter swap_id described as 'Swap ID returned from lightning_receive or lightning_send'. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond that, only implicitly confirming the origin of the swap_id. Baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks the status of a Lightning swap, distinguishing between send and receive. It uses specific verbs ('Check the status') and resource ('Lightning swap'), and differentiates it from sibling tools like lightning_receive/send which initiate swaps.

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 implies when to use the tool (after initiating a Lightning swap) and briefly differentiates send vs receive behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like changelly_status or sideshift_status for non-Lightning swaps.

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