nostr_publish_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a price ('3 sats'), which implies a cost, but doesn't clarify if this is per event, how payment works (e.g., via 'payment_preimage'), or other behaviors like rate limits, error handling, or what 'publish' entails (e.g., to default relays). The description is too sparse for a mutation tool with payment aspects.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 mutation tool with payment requirements and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the payment flow (e.g., that 'payment_preimage' is required after paying an invoice from another tool), what happens on success/failure, or how it differs from siblings like 'nostr_sign_event'. The cost mention is vague without context.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying a cost context with 'Price: 3 sats', which loosely relates to 'payment_preimage'. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Sign and publish') and resource ('a Nostr event to relays'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'nostr_sign_event' (which likely only signs without publishing) or 'nostr_post_note' (which might be a specialized version for kind 1 notes).

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 like 'nostr_sign_event' or 'nostr_post_note'. It mentions a price ('3 sats'), which hints at a cost context, but doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., needing to pay first) or when to choose this over other publishing methods.

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