transactions / send

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

The description says 'Sign and broadcast', an unambiguous state-changing write, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction of the structured safety profile. The extra context (env signer key, chain+value caps, no bypass) is useful but cannot offset a contradictory annotation.

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 dense sentences with the action front-loaded and the constraint ('Caps are structural; no bypass.') placed as a closing guardrail. No filler.

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?

Explains the signing model and cap enforcement well, but for a mutating broadcast tool it omits failure behavior, whether a tx hash is returned, and confirmation semantics — and no output schema exists to fill that gap. Combined with the annotation mismatch, the agent is left uncertain about the operation's effects.

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% for all three required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only vaguely implies value and destination through 'ETH value transfer' and 'chain+value caps'; chain_id, to, and value_wei (notably its string-encoded wei format) are never explained.

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 specific verb pair ('Sign and broadcast') and resource ('ETH value transfer') plus the execution path (policy-gated executor). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like transactions.prepare, transactions.simulate, and transactions.call_router.

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?

Implies when to use by naming the executor path and 'simulation-first', but never explicitly states when to prefer this over transactions.prepare, transactions.simulate, or transactions.call_router, nor any prerequisites (funded account, allowlisted recipient).

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