peck_send_payment

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, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals that wallet-toolbox createAction is used internally, that it deducts from the spendable balance, wraps the signed BEEF in a PaymentToken, delivers to the payment_inbox, and notes the ~100ms auto-internalization when the recipient is listening. It also states that broadcast is signed by the MCP keychain identity.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: core action, internal mechanism, use cases, and prerequisite. Information is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then logically layered. No redundant phrasing or fluff.

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 is rich for a tool with no annotations or output schema: it covers mechanism, side effects, delivery, timing, prerequisites, and identity. The main gap is the lack of information about the return value or failure modes (e.g., what happens if the recipient is not listening or balance is insufficient), but it remains largely complete for invoking the tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no substantive parameter meaning beyond the schema: it references 'amount + network fee' (sats) and 'agent identity' (agent_account), but these are already described in the schema. No format, default, or edge-case detail is added for parameters.

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 action ('Push a BRC-29 payment to a recipient over PeerPay live WS') and explicitly positions it as 'the inverse of peck_request_payment', making it distinguishable from its closest sibling. The resource (recipient, PeerPay live WS) and mechanism are both named clearly.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for agent-initiated payments: refunds after failed tasks, tips, agent-to-agent settlements.' It also names the alternative (peck_request_payment) via the inverse relationship, and states the prerequisite of sufficient spendable balance for amount + network fee.

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