send_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Send', implying a transaction, but fails to mention if it requires gas, checks balances, is irreversible, or what the return value is. For a financial tool, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action, and contains no fluff. Every word 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?

The description adequately covers input parameters but lacks information about the output (e.g., transaction hash, success/failure). Given no output schema, the description should ideally mention what the tool returns. It is missing this crucial context for a transaction tool.

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%, and the description adds value beyond the schema by providing an example for the amount parameter ('e.g. "5.00" for 5 USDC') and clarifying that testnet is the default for network. This helps the agent use the parameters correctly.

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 verb 'Send', the resource 'any supported token', and the scope 'to an address on Pharos Atlantic Testnet'. It distinguishes from siblings like send_usdc (specific token) and batch_send (multiple).

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 for sending supported tokens on a specific testnet, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_usdc or batch_send. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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