evm_send

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool is state-changing and that the 'confirm' parameter controls actual broadcast vs simulation. This is useful but does not address authentication/signing requirements, gas costs, or error handling. It partially compensates for minimal annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds essential context (calldata requirement and chain availability). Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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?

The description is adequate for a mutation tool with comprehensive parameter descriptions in the schema. However, it lacks information about expected return values (transaction hash or simulation result) and does not cover gas estimation or signing requirements. Could be more complete for a novice agent.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description reinforces 'ABI-encoded calldata' but adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 ('Send a state-changing EVM transaction'), the resource ('EVM transaction'), and key requirements ('Provide ABI-encoded calldata', 'Available on Minievm chains'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like evm_call by emphasizing state-changing nature.

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 implies usage for state-changing operations via the term 'state-changing' and the 'confirm' parameter (false=simulation, true=broadcast). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., evm_call for read-only), nor provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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