midl_send_raw_transaction

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, which the description implicitly confirms by describing a state-changing operation. The description adds that the tool returns a full receipt, which is useful. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like gas consumption, irreversibility, or potential failure reasons, which would improve transparency.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and outcome. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it optimally brief and front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main purpose and return value. It could mention error handling or confirmation times, but overall it is reasonably complete for this tool's complexity.

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 fully describes the parameter signedTx with a pattern and description. The tool description does not add any further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the score is at baseline.

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 raw signed transaction') and the return value ('full transaction receipt'). This verb+resource specification effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like midl_write_contract or midl_transfer_evm, which have different purposes.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., midl_write_contract for contract interactions that also send transactions). There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the transaction must be signed) or when not to use it.

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