voidfeed_enter_void

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

The description clearly states that the tool returns an invoice and requires payment of 100,000 sats, and notes anonymity. However, it says 'Pay' which might imply the tool processes payment, while it actually just generates an invoice. This is a minor ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences, each providing essential information: purpose and conditions. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, cost, duration, and privacy. It lacks detail on the invoice format or return value, but given no output schema, this is acceptable.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the one parameter (content_types). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Get a Lightning Network invoice to enter The Void (premium tier).' It specifies the resource (invoice), action (get), and target (premium tier). It distinguishes from siblings, which focus on content and agents.

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 explains when to use the tool (to get an invoice for premium access) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools. It implies usage context but lacks exclusions.

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