sendTransaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Send a transaction', implying a mutation, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, fees, authorization scope, or error conditions. The agent lacks behavioral context.

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 short (two sentences) with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it misses an opportunity to include essential details like output or examples, which could be added without hurting conciseness.

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 (5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash) or any post-invocation steps. Sibling tools like 'simulateAssetChanges' have more contextual description.

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 for all 5 parameters, so the schema already documents them well. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 verb 'Send' and identifies the resource as 'a transaction from a smart contract account (SCA)'. This distinguishes it from most sibling tools, which are read-only or simulation-related. However, it doesn't specify whether the transaction is an ETH transfer or contract interaction, so it could be more specific.

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 mentions a requirement ('Requires AGENT_WALLET_SERVER'), but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'swap' or 'simulateExecution'. There are no exclusions or contextual cues to help the agent decide.

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