spraay_xmtp_send

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

The description adds behavioral traits beyond annotations: end-to-end encryption and a cost of $0.003 USDC. Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but no contradiction. It does not detail side effects or idempotency, but added cost and encryption are useful.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and adds encryption and cost context concisely.

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 description covers purpose, encryption, cost, and network. With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It could mention prerequisites like recipient having XMTP enabled, but schema details that. Overall sufficient for a simple 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The main description does not add further parameter details beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 clearly states the tool sends an encrypted XMTP message to any Ethereum address, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like spraay_xmtp_inbox and other messaging tools through encryption and network mention.

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 use for sending encrypted XMTP messages but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like spraay_chat or spraay_xmtp_inbox. It includes cost and encryption as usage context but no exclusions.

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