x402_gasless_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: gasless, EIP-3009 authorization, recipient-pays-gas, and sender signs. However, it does not cover prerequisites (e.g., prior token approval) or failure behavior, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 two sentences, directly front-loaded with the action ('Send a gasless payment') and adds essential context in the second sentence. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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?

For a payment-send tool with a well-defined schema, the description covers the core mechanism and cost split. It lacks any mention of return values or post-send behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's richness, it is nearly complete. Slightly more could be said about the signing step.

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%, so parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the mention of EIP-3009 aligns with the token property but does not deepen parameter understanding.

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 sends a gasless payment using EIP-3009 authorization, with the specific differentiator that the recipient pays gas while the sender only signs. This distinguishes it from generic send tools like x402_send and x402_send_payment.

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: when you want to send a payment without paying gas, and the recipient covers it. It gives clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the EIP-3009 reference effectively excludes non-supporting tokens.

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