send_trx

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states 'Send TRX' without disclosing that it is a permanent, irreversible on-chain action requiring sufficient balance and incurring fees. Critical details about signing and return values are omitted.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single clear sentence. It is front-loaded but may be too terse, missing important context that could fit in one more sentence.

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 write operation like sending TRX, the description is incomplete. It omits what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash), that private key signing is required, fee implications, and that the sender must have sufficient balance. The lack of output schema and annotations leaves a significant information gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which are already self-explanatory ('Recipient TRON address', 'Amount in TRX', 'Private key of sender').

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 action and resource: sending TRX to an address. It differentiates from sibling tools like contract_call which handle smart contract interactions, but does not explicitly mention that this is for native TRX only.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as contract_call for token transfers, or when not to use it. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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