Send USDC

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses the presign-guard screening (known drainers, sanctioned addresses), spending-limit enforcement, and the owner-approval escalation over a limit. It omits irreversibility and any auth/permission requirement, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action before the guard/limit caveats. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral context (screening, limits, approval escalation). It could say more about what a successful or rejected call returns, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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% and each of the three parameters is documented in the schema, including the amount pattern and the owner-facing 'reason' field. The description adds no per-parameter syntax or format meaning beyond that, so 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 USDC from this wallet to an address'), and the USDC specificity distinguishes it from send_native. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with pay_x402 or name which sibling to prefer.

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 explains mechanics but gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. An agent gets no signal on when to choose send_usdc over send_native or pay_x402, leaving selection to inference from the asset name.

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