send-sft-nft-meta-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 sends tokens using a wallet from the environment, which implies a write operation, but does not disclose critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, transaction costs, or potential side effects (e.g., irreversible transfers). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.

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, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and adding a brief operational detail in the second. There is no unnecessary information, and it efficiently communicates the tool's function without redundancy. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring usage guidelines more explicitly.

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 token transfer tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., security, errors), output format, and differentiation from sibling tools. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a write operation involving financial transactions.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for each parameter (token, amount, receiver). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only noting that amount is 'ONLY needed for SFT or Meta-ESDT,' which clarifies usage but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate with additional semantic insights.

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's purpose: 'Create a nft, sft or meta esdt transfer transaction and send it.' It specifies the action (create and send) and the resource (NFT, SFT, or Meta-ESDT tokens). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send-fungible-tokens' or 'send-egld', which handle other token types, leaving some ambiguity in distinguishing use cases.

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 NFT, SFT, or Meta-ESDT tokens, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send-fungible-tokens' or 'send-egld'. It mentions the wallet is set in the environment, which gives some context, but lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, such as specifying token type constraints or prerequisites.

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