nostr_publish_addressable_event

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses automatic d-tag setting and replaceability behavior. However, it does not mention authentication, relay acceptance, or error handling, which are relevant for a publish tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no redundant content. Every sentence provides essential information.

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?

With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: kind range, automatic d-tag, replaceability, and market-specific examples. It could mention event signing or failure behavior, but overall sufficient for the complexity.

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 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds context about marketplace kinds and replaceability, but mostly repeats schema info (d_tag sets d tag). No additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 it publishes parameterized-replaceable events (kind 30000–39999) and specifically calls out NIP-15 marketplace use cases (stalls and products). It distinguishes itself from siblings like nostr_publish_event, which publishes regular events.

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 explains that this tool is the 'load-bearing bridge' for marketplace events and notes republishing behavior. While it does not explicitly list when not to use it, the context strongly implies it is for addressable events only, providing adequate guidance for an agent.

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