bank-send

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'supports sending multiple coins in one transaction.' It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it's a write operation (implied by 'Send'), authentication needs, rate limits, transaction fees, confirmation times, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies blockchain state.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a useful behavioral detail. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points or separation of key points.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error handling, network dependencies (beyond the parameter hint), and behavioral implications like transaction finality or security considerations. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs financial transactions.

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%, providing clear documentation for all parameters (coins, memo, networkName, recipientAddress). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that multiple coins can be sent. No additional syntax, format, or constraints are provided beyond what's in the schema 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 action ('Send tokens') and resource ('to another address'), with the additional detail about supporting multiple coins. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-balance' or 'delegate' by focusing on token transfers, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'ibc-transfer'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ibc-transfer' (for cross-chain) or 'contract-execute' (for smart contract interactions). The description implies it's for direct token transfers but lacks context about prerequisites, network selection, or comparison with siblings.

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