lightning_create_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates an invoice but provides no information about what happens after creation (e.g., where the invoice is stored, how it's delivered, whether it's immediately payable), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The 'Price: 5 sat' statement adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 brief (two short phrases) but not optimally structured. The 'Price: 5 sat' statement adds confusion rather than value. While concise, it's not effectively front-loaded with the most critical information, and the second phrase creates ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 that creates financial transactions with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a successful invocation returns, error conditions, or practical usage context. The 'Price: 5 sat' statement creates more questions than answers about the tool's actual behavior.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no meaningful parameter information beyond what's in the schema. In fact, the 'Price: 5 sat' statement potentially contradicts the 'amount_sats' parameter which allows variable amounts. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('Lightning invoice'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools (like 'nostr_zap' which might also involve Lightning payments), and the inclusion of 'Price: 5 sat' is confusing and potentially misleading since the input schema shows the amount is configurable via 'amount_sats' parameter.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'Price: 5 sat' might imply a fixed price scenario, this contradicts the parameter schema which allows variable amounts. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools like 'nostr_zap' or 'verify_receipt'.

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