prepare_btc_multisig_send

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds value by detailing the signing process (Ledger hardware interaction), the fact that it does not finalize or broadcast, and the fee cap guard. Does not explicitly confirm idempotency but does not contradict 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 relatively long but front-loaded with the core purpose. The pipeline details are informative for a complex multi-sig flow. Every sentence contributes to understanding, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Covers the pipeline steps, constraints (P2WSH only, no broadcast), and related tools. No output schema is provided, but the description mentions returning a partial PSBT. Could specify the return format (e.g., hex, base64) for full completeness in a high-complexity tool.

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%, but the description adds significant context beyond the schema: explains 'max' sweeps with fee-aware selection, fee rate defaults to mempool.space halfHourFee, and the high fee override cap. Each parameter's purpose and behavior is enriched.

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 a tx from a multi-sig wallet, signs with Ledger, and returns a partial PSBT. It distinguishes from siblings like prepare_btc_send (single-sig) and combine_btc_psbts (post-processing), providing a specific verb+resource scope.

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?

Explicitly describes the initiator flow and the pipeline, naming downstream tools (combine_btc_psbts, finalize_btc_psbt) for post-processing. Mentions P2WSH-only limitation. Could be clearer about when not to use (e.g., if not initiator or if taproot is needed) but provides strong contextual guidance.

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