liquid_send_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context such as the asset type (non-L-BTC), confidentiality requirement, and return values. However, it does not disclose mutational implications like irreversible spending, potential failure modes, or fee deduction behavior beyond what the schema implies. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, target, and return value, scoring high on conciseness.

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 sufficient for a basic send operation, but given the complexity of a financial transaction and lack of annotations/output schema, it could provide more context (e.g., funding source, balance requirements, or error behavior). It is adequately informative but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the description is not required to repeat parameter details. It adds a concrete example (USDt-Liquid) but no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 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), the specific resource (non-L-BTC Liquid asset), and the destination (confidential address). It also mentions the return value (broadcast txid and fee), which fully clarifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from the sibling liquid_send_btc.

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—sending a non-L-BTC asset—and implies the alternative (liquid_send_btc) by excluding BTC, but it does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use this tool. This is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately, but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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