unwrap_eth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the conversion action and amount format, it lacks critical information such as whether this requires gas fees, what permissions are needed, whether it's reversible, potential rate limits, or what the expected output looks like. For a financial transaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second provides specific parameter guidance. Every sentence adds clear value with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of a financial conversion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter format but misses critical behavioral details (e.g., transaction costs, success/failure responses, error conditions). However, it does adequately explain the core functionality for a user familiar with blockchain concepts.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (wallet_id, amount, chain_id) with descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying the amount format with an example ('0.5' for 0.5 WETH), but doesn't provide additional context for wallet_id or chain_id beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does most of the work.

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 specific action ('Unwrap wrapped tokens') and resources involved (WETH, WAVAX, WBNB, etc. back to native tokens). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'wrap_eth' by specifying the opposite operation, and from other tools like 'transfer' or 'send_transaction' by focusing on token conversion rather than movement.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to convert wrapped tokens to native tokens) and provides an example format for the amount parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., when to use 'transfer_token' instead for moving wrapped tokens without conversion).

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