spraay_batch_execute

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

Annotations confirm non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds cost ($0.01 USDC), return type (unsigned transaction data), and token support. No contradictions with annotations. Could mention side effects like deducting fees or requiring wallet approval, but overall good.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, constraints, return type, cost. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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?

With 4 required parameters and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the core functionality, return type, and cost. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., active wallet or funds) but is mostly complete for an execution tool. Output schema handles return details.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds context about the batch (up to 200 recipients) and token formats (symbol or address), but does not significantly expand beyond schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Execute', resource 'batch payment', and key constraints: up to 200 recipients, single Base transaction via Spraay protocol. It distinguishes from siblings like spraay_payroll_execute by specifying the batch nature and protocol.

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 for batch payments but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives like spraay_batch_estimate. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.

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