ecash_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses an important requirement (ECASH_PRIVATE_KEY env var), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether the transaction is irreversible, or any other runtime behavior. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the key prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or waste.

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 simple schema and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a critical setup requirement. However, for a mutation tool (sending tokens), it lacks information about return values, error handling, or network/transaction confirmation, leaving the agent with some uncertainty about the tool's full behavior.

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%; both 'to' and 'amount' are described in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 sends ECASH tokens to another address, with a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('ECASH tokens') and scope ('to another address'). It inherently distinguishes itself from read-only sibling tools like ecash_check_balance or ecash_get_job.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (sending tokens) and an explicit prerequisite (ECASH_PRIVATE_KEY environment variable must be set). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but given the sibling list, it's the only send tool, so ambiguity is low. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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