x402_send_payment

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. As a payment-sending tool, it relies on real funds being moved, but the description does not mention irreversibility, the need for a funded wallet, gas fees, or that a transaction will be broadcast. This is a significant gap 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The parenthetical 'not HTTP 402' adds a useful clarifying distinction without excessive length. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is scannable.

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 schema fully documents the four parameters, and the description covers the core function and token support. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention the return value (e.g., transaction hash) or any prerequisites such as requiring a configured wallet or sufficient balance. For a simple payment tool, this is acceptable but not complete.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all parameters (to, chain, token, amount). The description adds token support details ('USDs, USDC, and native tokens'), but these are already enumerated in the schema's token enum. No additional meaning is provided for amounts, defaults, or formatting, so the value added over the schema is minimal.

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 direct cryptocurrency payment and lists supported tokens (USDs, USDC, native). The parenthetical 'not HTTP 402' provides a distinguishing contrast from payment-request flows, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like x402_send or x402_gasless_send, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is 'not HTTP 402,' which clarifies a concept but does not mention when to choose this over x402_batch_send, x402_gasless_send, or other x402 variants. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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