Create a direct ETH transfer by specifying recipient and amount in wei so a local browser wallet can sign and broadcast it.
Prepare a direct ETH transfer in wei.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipient | Yes | ||
| amount_wei | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a preparatory/non-executing step, whether it requires a connected wallet, whether the approval flow is required afterward, or what the output contains. For a tool that produces transaction data, that is a substantial gap.
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?
A single tight sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded and readable, though it is arguably under-specified rather than truly concise.
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 zero annotation coverage, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should explain the prepare-then-approve flow, address/amount formats, and what the caller receives, none of which is present.
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 0% and the description adds no detail about recipient format (address? name?) or amount_wei format (string handling, wei conversion expectations). With 2 undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
States a clear verb (prepare) and resource (direct ETH transfer) with the unit (wei). It partially distinguishes itself from prepare_erc20_transfer through the 'ETH' qualifier, though it doesn't explicitly call out the 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus prepare_erc20_transfer, prepare_buy_token, or how it fits into the transfer/approval flow with request_wallet_approval. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.