nano_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the action is a send (mutation) and mentions a default max amount (0.05), but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it requires specific permissions, if transactions are reversible, rate limits, error handling, or what the response contains. The 'predefined account' hint is vague about ownership or setup.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and includes key constraints (predefined account, destination address) without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, or error conditions. The 'predefined account' is ambiguous, and behavioral risks (e.g., irreversible transactions) are unaddressed, leaving gaps for safe agent use.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the amount has a default max (0.05), which is already in the schema's description for 'amount'. No syntax or format details beyond the schema are provided.

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') and resource ('Nano currency'), specifying it's from a predefined account to a destination address. It distinguishes from siblings like 'block_info' or 'nano_account_info' which are read operations, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential send alternatives (none listed).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions a 'predefined account' but doesn't clarify if this is the only sending method available or if there are prerequisites like authentication. Sibling tools are all read-only, so usage context is implied but not stated.

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