sideshift_send

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

Describes the sequence of actions (quote, shift, broadcast), automatic refund address, rate locking with quote_id, and env var for bypassing allowlist. Does not mention possible failure modes or return values, but given no annotations, it covers the key behavioral traits.

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 packed with useful information without being overly verbose. Each sentence adds value, but could be more structured (e.g., using bullet points for constraints) to improve readability.

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?

Lacks explanation of the return value (e.g., shift ID, status) and does not cover all 13 parameters. Given the tool's complexity and no output schema, more detail on expected output and error handling would improve completeness.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema by explaining deposit_network constraints, liquid_asset_id necessity, refund_memo automatic setting, and quote_id purpose. With 54% schema coverage, the description compensates well for undocumented parameters, though some parameters like settle_amount remain unexplained.

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 sends funds via SideShift, gets a fixed-rate quote, creates the shift, and broadcasts the deposit. It distinguishes from siblings like btc_send or lw_send by specifying the SideShift service and constraints on deposit chain and allowed assets.

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 guidance: always call sideshift_quote first, deposit chain must be bitcoin or liquid, assets must be in allowlist (bypassable with env var), and refund address is set automatically. Does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context and constraints imply it's only for SideShift swaps.

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