q402_oft_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it is server-managed (Mode C), sandbox-by-default, requires consent token for live execution, and sends to the same wallet address on the destination. It does not cover fee handling, slippage, or failure behavior, but the disclosed traits are significant and actionable.

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, front-loaded with the primary action (bridge USDT0 across chains), and includes the crucial same-wallet constraint plus an explicit sibling alternative. Every clause earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid operational overview: chain list, asset type, wallet mode, sandbox default, live requirements, and USDC alternative. It does not mention the prerequisite quote flow (though consentToken implies a preview), nor gas funding details, so it is not fully complete but is well above the minimum.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that sandbox defaults to true and that confirm and consentToken are needed for live bridges, but it does not add substantial parameter-level detail beyond the schema. The schema already explains raw decimal units, enums, and the consent token source.

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 bridges USDT0 across specific chains via LayerZero OFT, and specifies it sends from the Agent Wallet to the same wallet address on the destination. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool q402_bridge_send, which is explicitly mentioned for USDC.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it is for USDT0 cross-chain bridges, with a direct alternative named (q402_bridge_send for USDC via CCIP). It also states the required conditions for a live bridge (confirm:true + consentToken) and that sandbox is the default, giving clear operational context.

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