evm_transfer_native

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and open-world. The description adds the nuance of supporting ENS names, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as the need for gas, wallet activation, or transaction confirmation behavior beyond the obvious transfer semantics.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and no unnecessary words. It is appropriately minimal.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage and destructive annotation, the description is sufficient. It could mention the return value or prerequisites, but those are not essential given the annotations and simplicity. Sibling tools provide additional context on related operations.

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%, so baseline score of 3 applies. The description mentions 'address or ENS name' and 'native tokens' but adds no new param detail beyond what the schema already provides for 'to', 'amount', and 'chainId'.

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?

Description clearly states the action (send), resource (native tokens), and target (address or ENS name). It distinguishes from sibling evm_transfer_erc20 by explicitly limiting to native tokens.

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 usage by specifying 'native tokens' but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like evm_transfer_erc20 or when not to use it. No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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