compose_mpma

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

The description adds a useful behavioral constraint—'All three arrays must be the same length'—which is not covered by the schema. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like return format, side effects, or dependencies (e.g., UTXO selection). Annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and not contradicted, but the description adds only limited context beyond them.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes only essential information. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers core functionality and the key array-length constraint. However, it does not explain what the tool returns or how the composed transaction is used downstream, which could be useful but is not critical given the tool's straightforward compose role and sufficient schema coverage.

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 adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics by stating that assets, destinations, and quantities must have equal lengths, clarifying a relationship not explicitly stated in the schema. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 tool composes a multi-party multi-asset send transaction, distinguishing it from single-send compose_send and other compose_* siblings. The verb 'compose' plus the specific 'multi-party multi-asset' scope makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool—when sending multiple assets to multiple recipients in a single transaction—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context of sibling tools (e.g., compose_send) provides contrast, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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