peck_payment_tx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it states that the tool broadcasts a signed transaction using the MCP keychain-resident agent identity and explains recipient resolution order. It could add an explicit irreversibility/fee warning, but 'broadcast signed' and 'moves sats' are strong signals for an on-chain payment.

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?

Three focused sentences front-load the purpose, then cover the built transaction, recipient resolution, and signing identity without repetition. Every sentence contributes information needed to select and invoke the tool.

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 5-parameter no-output-schema payment tool, the description is complete enough to call correctly: it covers what transaction is built, how the recipient is determined, and who signs it. Remaining gaps are minor (return shape, fees, and the undocumented agent_app parameter) rather than blockers.

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 coverage is high (80%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that target_txid identifies the post being tipped and that recipient_address overrides the default /v1/post/:target_txid author resolution; it leaves agent_app undocumented in both schema and description.

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 opens with a concrete action ('Tip / pay another user on-chain') and specifies the exact artifact built: a Bitcoin Schema MAP type=payment tx that references target_txid and moves a sat amount. This unique post-referencing behavior clearly separates it from siblings like peck_send_payment or peck_request_payment.

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 intended use case is clear: tip/pay a post author on-chain, with target_txid resolving the recipient unless recipient_address is provided. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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