sideshift_receive

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

No annotations provided, so description must stand alone. It explains the flow: returns deposit address, user sends to it, constraints on chains and coins. Lacks details on idempotency, rate guarantee, or error handling. Moderate transparency.

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?

Description is a concise single paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loading purpose. Each sentence adds value. Minor restructuring could improve readability but overall efficient.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the flow, constraints, and a key recommendation. Missing details on response format (deposit address structure) and error scenarios, but adequate for basic usage.

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 only 25%. Description adds meaning for settle_network restrictions, allowlist for coins/networks, and refund address recommendation. But does not describe all 8 parameters individually, leaving gaps.

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?

Description clearly states it receives into local wallet via SideShift variable-rate shift and returns a deposit address. It differentiates from siblings like sideshift_send by describing the direction of the shift.

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 settle chain must be 'bitcoin' or 'liquid', allowlist restrictions, environment variable to bypass, and strong recommendation for external_refund_address. It does not explicitly compare to other SideShift tools but the constraints are clear.

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