rgb_create_lightning_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns a specific invoice format (e.g., bolt11), or if the invoice expires. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical operational traits unclear.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the complexity of creating a Lightning invoice (involving network operations and financial transactions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values (e.g., invoice string, expiry), error conditions, or integration context, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective use.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (amount in satoshis, invoice description). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as example values or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create') and resource ('Lightning Network invoice'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like rgb_pay_lightning_invoice (which pays invoices) and rgb_decode_lightning_invoice (which decodes them). However, it doesn't specify what type of invoice or for what context, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a Lightning node setup), compare to rgb_create_swap (which might involve invoices), or indicate scenarios like receiving payments versus testing. Without any usage context, the agent must infer from the name alone.

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