wrap_native_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing that this is a state-changing transaction, requires gas/signing, or returns a transaction hash. The security note about privateKey exists only in the schema, not the description, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 that includes the core operation and illustrative examples. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.

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 executes a blockchain transaction, but the description does not mention what the operation returns (e.g., transaction hash), whether it requires gas, or any side effects. With no output schema and no annotations, this minimal description leaves the agent without essential context for a transaction tool.

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%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (amount, network, privateKey). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a 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 action verb 'Wrap' and clearly states the resource (native tokens to wrapped ERC-20 version), with concrete examples (ETH→WETH, BNB→WBNB, MATIC→WMATIC). It effectively distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'unwrap_native_token' tool.

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 when to use this tool (for converting native tokens to their wrapped form) through the examples, but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like unwrap_native_token or provide exclusionary criteria. The context is implied rather than explicit.

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