nostr_zap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a payment tool with a fixed tool fee (50 sats) and a maximum zap amount (5000 sats). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure, leaving significant gaps for a financial transaction tool.

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?

Extremely concise with just two sentences that are front-loaded with essential information. Every word earns its place: first sentence states the core action, second sentence provides critical constraints (price and limits). No wasted words or redundant information.

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 payment tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it covers purpose and basic constraints well, it lacks crucial context about authentication, error handling, return values, and how the payment preimage parameter relates to the transaction flow. The description doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data.

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 marginal value by reinforcing the max amount constraint for 'amount_sats' and implying the tool fee context, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Zap a Nostr user via Lightning') with the resource ('Nostr user'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's a payment action (vs. profile fetching, note posting, etc.). It provides concrete details about pricing and limits that further clarify its purpose.

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 implies usage for sending Lightning payments to Nostr users, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'lightning_create_invoice' or 'create_action_receipt'. It provides some context with price and max amount, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or comparison with sibling tools.

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