prepare_native_send

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description states it builds an unsigned transaction, implying no on-chain changes, which conflicts with destructiveHint. It does not clarify that the output must be signed and broadcast separately, leaving the agent uninformed about the full workflow.

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 concise sentences with no fluff, efficiently conveying core purpose. However, the structure could benefit from listing parameters or output details given the tool's complexity.

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?

No output schema, and the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., unsigned transaction hex) and how to proceed (signing/sending). Given three required parameters and four total, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description only reinforces the amount parameter's human-readable format, but schema coverage is only 25% (only amount has schema description). It fails to explain wallet, to, or chain parameters, and incorrectly limits chains to Ethereum/Arbitrum while schema includes Polygon, Base, Optimism.

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 it builds an unsigned native-coin send transaction, giving examples like ETH on Ethereum/Arbitrum. This distinguishes from token send or swap tools. However, it only mentions two chains while the schema includes five, slightly narrowing scope.

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 gives minimal guidance: mentions passing a human-readable amount but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like prepare_token_send or prepare_swap. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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