decode_psbt

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it works offline, cannot sign or broadcast, and shows signing status. This helps the agent set expectations without overstepping.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the core action and outputs, then adding usage context, offline/capability constraints, and parameter explanations. Every line earns its place.

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?

Given the simple schema, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed: what the tool does, its safety guarantees, its limitations, and its parameters. No critical gap remains.

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It clearly explains that 'psbt' is base64-encoded and that 'network' only affects address rendering, which is genuinely useful beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Decode') and resource ('PSBT') and clarifies the key outputs: destinations, fee, and signing status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like decode_raw_transaction and decode_wif.

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?

It explicitly frames the use case: 'check where funds are going before signing in your wallet.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select this tool correctly among the decode/derive siblings.

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