compose_send

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

The description merely restates the tool's purpose without disclosing behavioral traits beyond the annotations. It does not mention that composing a transaction does not broadcast it, that the result must be signed and broadcast separately via broadcast_transaction, or any side effects or requirements. The annotations already signal a non-read-only operation, so the description adds little value.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. Every word contributes, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools like broadcast_transaction, the description is too thin. It does not explain the compose-then-broadcast workflow, what the return value looks like, or the context for using this tool in a larger transaction-building process. This leaves the agent without essential operational context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed parameter explanations (e.g., quantity divisibility, sat_per_vbyte). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides the necessary meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 transaction to send Counterparty tokens to an address, using a specific verb ('compose') and resource (transaction). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like compose_dispense or compose_order, but does not explicitly differentiate from compose_mpma which also sends tokens (multi-asset).

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. The description does not mention that this is for single-asset sends, nor does it reference compose_mpma for multi-asset sends. There is no mention of prerequisites like address ownership or balance checks.

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