lw_sweep

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavioral traits: fee deducted from inputs, leaves 0 sats of targeted balance, and explains the asset sweep nuance where L-BTC change may remain. It clearly indicates a write operation.

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 concise with two sentences plus a note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential behavioral details without redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 complexity of sweeping assets with fee deduction and asset-specific behavior, the description is complete. It covers the main operation, the asset sweep scenario, and the expected outcome. No output schema exists, but the description is adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that asset_id is optional, what happens when omitted or set to L-BTC policy asset, and the behavior of the sweep. This goes 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 clearly states it sweeps the entire L-BTC balance or full balance of a specific Liquid asset to one address, distinguishing it from sibling tools like btc_sweep and lw_send. It specifies the verb 'sweep' and the resource 'L-BTC balance or Liquid asset balance'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'whenever the user says "send all", "sweep", "drain", "empty wallet", or "move everything" on Liquid.' Also provides guidance on asset sweep scenario and suggests calling again without asset_id to empty L-BTC. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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