Send Tokens

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (write operation) and idempotentHint=false. The description adds key context: simulation mode (simulate=true) for no-broadcast preview and gas estimate availability. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the main action and options, the second adds simulation capability. Information is front-loaded and essential.

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 no output schema, the description doesn't detail return format (e.g., transaction hash), but it explains simulation and gas estimates. For a write tool, this covers most agent needs, though explicit output specification would improve completeness.

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 is 3. The description adds that omitting token uses chain's native token, which adds meaning beyond the schema's 'omit for native token transfer.' It also mentions simulate and gas estimates, providing extra usage context.

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 clearly states the tool sends native tokens or ERC-20 tokens to a recipient address. It specifies conditions (omitting token for native) and option to simulate. It distinguishes from sibling tools like swap_tokens (swap vs send) and get_balance (read vs write).

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 clear context for when to use this tool (sending tokens) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, so the guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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