batch_send_eth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the network (Base), required environment variable, and a fee. However, it does not explain failure modes, validation rules, or side effects beyond sending. Some behavioral context is present but gaps remain.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds a prerequisite, and the third mentions a fee. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 covers the main purpose, prerequisite, and fee. No output schema exists, but the description does not mention return values (e.g., transaction hash) that would be helpful. For a simple batch tool, it is mostly complete but missing minor return info.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as constraints on array lengths or format of amounts. 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 ETH to multiple recipients in a single transaction on Base.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tool 'batch_send_erc20' which handles ERC20 tokens.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires DEPLOYER_PRIVATE_KEY env var') and a fee, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., single send or other batch tools). Usage is implied but not fully guided.

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