prepare_token_send

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

Description adds context beyond annotations: it clarifies the tool builds an unsigned transaction (not yet on-chain), mentions the 'max' special case and token disambiguation workflow. Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent hints, which align.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by special behavior. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and important usage notes. It could mention that the output is an unsigned transaction to be used with other tools, but the purpose is sufficiently clear.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'max' value for amount and giving context for token disambiguation. It adds meaning for two key parameters beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it builds an unsigned ERC-20 transfer transaction, using specific verb (build) and resource (unsigned ERC-20 transfer). It distinguishes from siblings like prepare_native_send by specifying token and mentioning resolve_token for symbol disambiguation.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to call resolve_token first if the user provided a token symbol, and explains the special 'max' amount usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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