ton_send_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 discloses that the transaction uses a mnemonic from the environment (a security/prerequisite detail) and clearly implies a mutation ('Send'). However, it does not warn about irreversibility, gas fees, or that it spends the user's funds, nor does it describe the return value.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes essential context (source of mnemonic) in minimal 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?

The tool is a simple transaction sender, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not mention the return format (e.g., transaction hash) or error conditions like insufficient funds. While the schema covers all parameters, the lack of return/error disclosure leaves a notable gap for a state-changing financial operation.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the overall purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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'), the resource ('TON'), the direction ('from your wallet to another address'), and the method ('using mnemonic from environment'). This is specific and distinguishes it from other chain-specific send tools like xrp_send_transaction.

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 context: when a user wants to send TON from their wallet. It also hints at a prerequisite (mnemonic from environment). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when not to use it, or exclusions compared to other send tools.

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