multi_wallet_gas_refuel

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so "without broadcasting" is largely reinforcing known safety. The genuinely additive disclosure is "preserving recipient order," a behavioral guarantee about ordered handling that the annotations do not cover.

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?

A single tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (quote, gas delivery, 1–20 recipients, no broadcast, order preserved) carries distinct information.

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 read-only quote tool with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose and the key ordering guarantee. With no output schema present, it would ideally say something about what the quote returns (estimated cost, delivery amounts), which is the only real gap.

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%, including minItems/maxItems and per-field semantics, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only restates the 1–20 recipient bound and ordering, adding almost nothing beyond the schema, which puts it at the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (quote) and resource (native gas delivery) plus a scope constraint (1–20 recipients), so an agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling get_cross_chain_bridge_quote, which is also a quote tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"without broadcasting" implies this is a preview/quote step rather than an execution step, which is useful implied guidance. However there is no explicit when-to-use versus the bridge-quote sibling, no stated prerequisites, and no guidance on when a quote should precede a refuel.

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