prepare_litecoin_native_send

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: the tool fetches UTXOs, runs coin selection, builds a PSBT v0 with nonWitnessUtxo (Ledger requirement), and returns a handle for send_transaction. It also explains why legacy 3-prefix P2SH is rejected (bitcoinjs-lib limitation). No contradictions with annotations.

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 (four sentences), front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence conveys essential information without redundancy. It efficiently covers pipeline, constraints, and return usage.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers the lifecycle: fetching UTXOs, fee estimation, coin selection, PSBT building with Ledger-specific requirements, and the subsequent send_transaction step. It also explains address type restrictions and their rationale, making it complete for agent invocation.

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 covers 83% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value beyond schema: for 'wallet', it clarifies that source addresses must be ltc1q or ltc1p in initial release; for 'to', it warns that legacy 3-prefix P2SH is rejected and advises using M-prefix; for 'feeRateSatPerVb', it states optional with default halfHourFee; for 'rbf', default true. 'allowHighFee' lacks extra context, slightly reducing completeness.

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 tool builds an unsigned Litecoin native-send PSBT, detailing the pipeline (fetch UTXOs, fee rate, coin selection, PSBT v0 with nonWitnessUtxo). It differentiates from sibling tools like prepare_btc_send by specifying Litecoin specifics and constraints (source addresses must be ltc1q or ltc1p, recipients exclude 3-prefix P2SH).

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 implies when to use (for Litecoin native sends) by referencing the same pipeline as prepare_btc_send. It lists constraints such as address type restrictions and explicitly notes that 3-prefix P2SH recipients are refused. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives, the Litecoin-specific focus provides sufficient guidance.

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