send_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the action and a basic requirement; it does not disclose whether the transaction is signed and broadcast, what the return value is, any authorization needs, or side effects (e.g., balance changes). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could include more detail without becoming overly verbose. It earns its place but is slightly under-specified.

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 tool has 8 parameters, complex nested objects (e.g., token, gas_condition), and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the gas condition parameter, return value, or prerequisites like wallet balance. The description leaves significant gaps for an 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?

All parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'For token transfers, specify type and token info,' which is already implied by schema. Thus, no extra value, baseline 3.

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 tool sends SOL/ETH or tokens, distinguishing between native and token transfers. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like send_batch or transfer_nft.

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 minimal guidance: 'For token transfers, specify type and token info.' It does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., send_batch for batch transfers, approve_token for approvals), nor does it specify prerequisites 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.