sideshift_receive

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return values (deposit address, QR code) and refund behavior, but omits error states, rate limits, or auth requirements. Adequate for a receive tool but could be richer.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying essential information. No redundancy, front-loaded with purpose and key constraints. Excellent structure.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, description covers core purpose, constraints, and return values. Lacks details on some parameters and error handling, but otherwise complete for a receive tool.

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 low (25%), but description adds meaning: explains deposit/settle constraints, enumerates settle_network values, and stresses external_refund_address. Does not cover all params (wallet_name, settle_memo, external_refund_memo), but the added context compensates.

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's purpose: 'Receive into the local wallet via a SideShift variable-rate shift.' It distinguishes from siblings like sideshift_send (sending) and changelly_receive by specifying the shift type and constraints.

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?

Provides explicit constraints: settle chain must be 'bitcoin' or 'liquid', both legs must be in the curated allowlist, and recommends external_refund_address. However, does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use.

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