send_private_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core mechanism (Flashbots Protect RPC) and purpose, but does not disclose return values, failure modes, or limitations (e.g., whether protection guarantees success). This is a modest level of transparency 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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, effectively communicating the tool's purpose in under 20 words.

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's complexity (9 parameters, including network and provider selection) and lack of output schema/annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't specify return behavior or caveats like supported networks, though the schema provides parameter details. More context about what the caller should expect would improve completeness.

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% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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 (send a transaction), the specific method (via Flashbots Protect RPC), and the intended outcome (avoid MEV extraction). This differentiates it from other send/transfer tools by highlighting its unique value proposition.

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 a clear usage context: use when MEV protection is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., regular send_transaction) or when not to use this tool, such as for simple transfers where public broadcast is acceptable.

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