send_erc20_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'send' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like transaction confirmation requirements, gas fees, network dependencies, error conditions, or what happens after sending (e.g., returns transaction hash or success status). This leaves significant gaps for a financial transaction tool.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and immediately understandable, making it optimally concise for its purpose.

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 financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after the send operation, what the return value might be, error handling, or important behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of cryptocurrency transactions and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more contextual information.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing extra.

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 ('send') and resource ('ERC20 token') with the destination ('to another wallet address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'send_edu', which appears to be a similar token transfer function for a specific token, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_edu' or other transfer-related tools in the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely from the tool name and parameters.

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