peck_reply_tx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the action is 'Broadcast signed by MCP's keychain-resident agent identity,' which is a useful side-effect disclosure. However, it does not mention irreversibility, transaction fees, failure modes, or what happens after broadcasting.

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 one tight sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It earns its place by conveying both purpose and signing behavior in minimal words.

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 tool that broadcasts a signed transaction, the description omits what the tool returns, whether the operation is irreversible, whether fees or network costs apply, and what prerequisites must hold. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these omissions leave an agent with meaningful gaps.

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 describes content, parent_txid, and agent_account, giving about 75% coverage. The description adds a general signing context for the agent identity but does not clarify the undocumented agent_app parameter or add meaning to the required parameters beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reply to a post on the BSV social graph.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling transaction tools like peck_post_tx, peck_like_tx, or peck_follow_tx, and the name reinforces the 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 phrase 'Reply to a post' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for creating a new post, liking, or messaging. The description does not reference alternatives such as peck_post_tx.

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