wdk_send_asset

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 on-chain sending, RGB invoice usage, and unit conversion, but does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., peer connection), or failure modes. The fee_rate parameter is optional but its behavior is not explained.

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 two sentences, both essential and front-loaded with the primary purpose. No extraneous words; each sentence adds value.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and key parameter details, but does not mention the return value. Since there is no output schema, the agent may need to know what the tool returns (e.g., transaction ID, success status). With 5 parameters and a complex domain, this gap reduces completeness.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful context: recipient_id is linked to deposit_address.address for RGB_INVOICE, amount is in display units, and fee_rate is optional. This goes beyond the schema, improving usability.

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 ('RGB asset'), and the recipient type ('RGB recipient_id'). It also provides a specific use case (funding a KaleidoSwap order with RGB_INVOICE format), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wdk_send_btc.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to fund a KaleidoSwap order...') and identifies the correct parameter value ('pass the deposit_address.address as recipient_id'). It implicitly contrasts with other send tools, but could be improved by adding when not to use it or mentioning alternative tools.

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