send_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful, non-obvious fact: PRIVATE_KEY must be set in the environment. However, for an irreversible value-transfer operation it says nothing about irreversibility, gas cost, or which chain/network the send occurs on.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, with both clauses carrying information (the token scope and the env requirement). It is efficient rather than padded, though 'Send CHZ or fan tokens' is close to restating the name.

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?

This is a financial mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavior and safety. It omits irreversibility, gas/network context, whether a tx hash is returned, and any preconditions beyond the env variable, leaving real gaps for an agent about to move funds.

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 100%, so all three parameters (to, token, amount) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema (e.g. amount units, address format, valid token symbols), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Send CHZ or fan tokens'), so an agent knows this moves tokens rather than swaps or approves them. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like swap_tokens or approve_token, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. balance, network, gas), and no routing to alternatives such as swap_tokens or approve_token. Usage can only be inferred from the tool name.

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