send-egld

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions transaction creation and sending, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, confirmation behavior, or error handling. It adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, front-loading the core action and key details (wallet source, receiver specification). Every word contributes essential information.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks behavioral details like transaction outcomes, error cases, or dependencies. It's minimally adequate given the simplicity but could be more informative.

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 the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Create a move balance transaction and send it') and resource ('send EGLD'), specifying it uses the wallet from environment variables. It distinguishes from sibling 'send-egld-to-multiple-receivers' by implying single-receiver scope, though not explicitly named.

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 implies usage for sending EGLD to a single receiver, with an alternative hinted at ('send-egld-to-multiple-receivers' for multiple receivers). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons with other send tools like 'send-fungible-tokens'.

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