send_key_to_telegram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action but does not disclose consequences (e.g., key exposure, irreversibility, required Telegram integration). This lack of disclosure is a significant gap for a tool handling sensitive data.

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 sentence of six words, which is very concise. However, it may be too brief for a tool of this sensitivity. No wasted words, but it could benefit from additional structure.

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 security implications of sending private keys, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the destination, confirmation steps, or safety measures. An output schema exists but is not shown; still, the description alone is insufficient for proper usage.

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 includes descriptions for both parameters ('wallet' and 'key_type'), so schema coverage is good. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. 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 action: sending a mnemonic or private key to Telegram. It uses a specific verb ('send') and resource ('mnemonic or private key'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on wallet management, orders, swaps, etc.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, warnings about security, or when not to use it. For a sensitive tool like this, such guidance is critical.

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