finalize_btc_psbt

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

The description adds details beyond annotations: it explains that the tool can broadcast (destructive behavior), returns broadcastedTxid on success, and refuses with per-input breakdown when threshold not met. It also aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true).

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It efficiently covers purpose, usage, behavior, and options.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains return values (tx hex, optional broadcastedTxid) and error conditions (refusal per input). For a complex tool, it covers all needed aspects for agent decision-making.

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%, and the description adds meaningful context: psbtBase64 must be fully signed, broadcast parameter effect is explained. While the schema already describes parameters, the description clarifies the prerequisites and outcomes.

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 verb 'Finalize' and the resource 'fully-signed multi-sig PSBT', and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'combine_btc_psbts' by referencing it as the typical preceding step.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use (after combine_btc_psbts when threshold is met) and when broadcast=true vs false, and describes the refusal behavior for incomplete signatures. It also notes 'No device touch', contrasting with signing tools.

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