send-fungible-tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'will send the specified token,' implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like transaction costs, confirmation times, error handling, or whether the action is irreversible. This leaves significant gaps for a financial transaction 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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key constraint (wallet from env). There's no unnecessary information, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes.

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 details on behavioral traits (e.g., transaction finality, errors), output format, and clear differentiation from siblings. This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (amount, token, receiver). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. However, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 a fungible token transfer transaction and send it') and resource ('fungible token'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like send-egld (which sends native currency) or send-sft-nft-meta-tokens (which sends non-fungible tokens). However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this is for sending tokens other than EGLD, which would make it fully distinct.

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, stating only that it uses 'the wallet set in the env.' It doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like send-egld (for native currency) or send-sft-nft-meta-tokens (for non-fungible tokens), nor does it mention prerequisites such as having sufficient balance or proper wallet configuration.

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