unwrap_native_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is an on-chain transaction that requires gas, changes wallet balances, or has security implications like private key usage (though the schema mentions private key security). The description only states the transformation without any side-effect or risk disclosure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and includes illustrative examples. Every part contributes to understanding; no wasted 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 has three parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema. The description clearly states the purpose but does not hint at the return value (e.g., transaction hash), gas requirements, or network-specific behavior. For a state-changing action, this is a noticeable gap, though the tool's simplicity and complete parameter docs keep it at a mid-level score.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by giving example token pairs (WETH→ETH) that clarify the meaning of 'wrapped tokens', but it does not add additional semantic detail beyond the schema for amount precision or network behavior. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('unwrap') and resource ('wrapped tokens' to 'native tokens'), with concrete examples (WETH→ETH, WBNB→BNB, WMATIC→MATIC) that clearly differentiate it from the sibling wrap_native_token. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly implies the use case: whenever wrapped tokens need to be converted back to native tokens. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the transformation is obvious enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so not a 5.

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