send

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool signs with the caller's private key and broadcasts the transaction. Also notes non-custodial nature in the parameter description. Covers chain-specific behaviors well but could be more explicit about transaction irreversibility.

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: first defines the core action, second provides chain-specific usage details. Front-loaded with the key purpose. No fluff, every sentence adds value.

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 11 parameters and multi-chain support, the description covers essential behavior and usage patterns. Lacks details on return values or error states, but output schema is absent and tool action is straightforward. Sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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% with per-parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to use parameters in context (e.g., omit nonce/gas for auto-fetch on EVM, which parameter to use for each chain), going beyond the schema.

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 'Sign and post a native-coin transfer', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'call_contract' or 'swap' by focusing on native coin transfers across multiple chains.

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?

Provides explicit guidance for EVM (omit nonce/gas for auto-fetch, or supply for control), and specifies which parameter to use for Solana (lamports) and Bitcoin (amount_btc). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned, but context is clear.

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