send-egld-to-multiple-receivers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that transactions are created and sent, and the wallet is set in the environment, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens upon execution (e.g., transaction IDs, confirmation). For a tool that performs financial transactions, this is a significant gap.

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 concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key details (wallet from environment). It is front-loaded with the main action, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from constraints.

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 complexity of a financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values (e.g., transaction hashes), error cases, or behavioral nuances like atomicity of sends. For a tool with 2 parameters and significant implications, more context is needed.

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 already documents both parameters ('amount' and 'receivers') with details like denomination and address format. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as constraints or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 move balance transactions and send them') and resource ('EGLD'), specifying it sends to multiple receivers. It distinguishes from the sibling 'send-egld' by mentioning multiple receivers, though not explicitly naming the sibling. However, it could be more specific about the transaction creation aspect.

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 when sending EGLD to multiple receivers, as opposed to the sibling 'send-egld' for single receivers, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the wallet is set in the environment, providing some context, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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