send_onchain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is a payment but does not disclose behavioral traits such as transaction irreversibility, network fees, confirmation times, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The Strike wallet mention adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 that directly states the tool's function. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating functional details from limitations.

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 a financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical information such as return values, error conditions, security implications, or how it differs from other payment-related sibling tools, making it inadequate 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('address' and 'amount_sats') adequately. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, but the high coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 ('send') and resource ('on-chain Bitcoin payment to a Bitcoin address'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pay_invoice' or 'pay_l402_challenge', which might also involve payments but through different mechanisms, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 mentions 'Currently only available with Strike wallet,' which is a limitation but not a usage guideline. There is no indication of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'pay_invoice' for off-chain payments.

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