approve_token_evm

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

The description does not disclose that this is an on-chain transaction that requires gas, wallet authorization, or has non-reversible effects (though approval can be revoked via another tool). The annotation 'openWorldHint: true' hints at external effects but does not clarify the transaction lifecycle, leaving the burden on the description, which remains shallow.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundancy. It directly states the action and includes a useful parenthetical about units, earning its place without unnecessary detail.

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 transactional tool with no output schema, the description fails to mention important context such as the need for a connected wallet, network selection, or that it creates a transaction requiring confirmation. While the schema covers parameters, the description is too minimal to fully guide an agent in executing this state-changing operation.

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 already documents all parameters with descriptions, and the description repeats the 'base units' detail without adding new meaning. Since coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description adds no additional parameter insight beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Approve') and clearly identifies the resource (an ERC20 token) and the action parameters (amount in base units, spender). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling approval tools like 'evm_approve_token_spending' or 'approve', so it misses differentiation.

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 provides no contextual guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'evm_approve_token_spending' or 'get_token_allowance_evm'. It simply restates the function without mentioning any prerequisites, chain considerations, or alternative tools.

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