liquid_send_btc

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 that the transaction is broadcast (returning a txid) and includes a fee, providing basic behavioral context. However, it does not mention irreversibility, balance requirements, or potential failure modes, which are relevant for a send operation.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and includes the network, destination type, and return information. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, making it highly concise without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple send operation, the description covers the function and return values, and the schema fully describes parameters. The lack of annotations and absence of any guidance on edge cases or prerequisites leaves a few gaps, but these are minor given the tool's straightforward nature.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (send), the resource (L-BTC on Liquid), and the destination type (confidential address), distinguishing it from the sibling tool liquid_send_asset. It also specifies the output (broadcast txid and fee), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 L-BTC specifically, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over liquid_send_asset or other alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or context where this tool should not be used, leaving the decision partially to inference.

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