Send & Stake

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's burden is to add context such as irreversibility of transfers, fee implications, or whether a signature/confirmation step is required — it adds none of that. Calling the operations 'mutating' merely restates readOnlyHint=false, so the description contributes essentially nothing beyond the structured fields for a high-risk value-moving tool.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity tips into under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with 13 parameters at 23% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin — it says nothing about parameter-to-action mapping, required fields per action, or what a successful call returns (a signature? a transaction?). An agent could guess the entry point but not call it correctly from this text alone.

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 only 23% across 13 parameters, and the description supplies no compensating meaning for action, amount, destination, recipientAddress, mintAddress, stakeAccount, owsWallet, sendMax, or detail. The only hint is that 'SOL/token' and 'staking' exist, which weakly signals the two action families but leaves the agent to infer which parameters apply to which action.

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 names a specific verb class and resource: 'Mutating SOL/token transfer and staking actions', which maps onto the action enum (transferSol, transferToken, stakeSOL, etc.) and clearly separates this tool from read-only siblings like heliusWallet or heliusChain. It stops short of enumerating the full action set (unstakeSOL, withdrawStake are only implied by 'staking actions'), so an agent must open the schema to see everything it can do.

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?

'Use for sends or staking, not read-only queries' gives both a positive use case and an explicit exclusion, which is more than most definitions offer. However, it names no alternative sibling for the excluded read path (heliusWallet/heliusTransaction) and gives no prerequisites such as a funded wallet or a required destination.

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