send_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without detailing side effects (e.g., gas costs, transaction fees), required permissions, or what happens on success/failure. The network scope contradiction further undermines transparency.

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, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it omits critical details such as network scope clarification and return value, making it efficient but incomplete.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should cover return values (e.g., transaction hash), prerequisites, and network constraints. It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters and multiple sibling tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra information beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The example for 'amount' is already present in the schema, so no additional value is provided from the description.

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 specifies the action ('Send') and resource ('any supported token'), listing specific token types. However, it limits the network to 'Pharos Atlantic Testnet' while the schema includes both testnet and mainnet options, creating a contradiction that slightly reduces clarity. It does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'send_usdc', which appears to be a more specific alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_usdc', 'batch_send', or 'conditional_payment'. The description does not specify prerequisites, such as having a sufficient balance or being connected to a wallet, nor does it indicate when the tool is not appropriate.

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