prepare_solana_native_send

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

The disclosure far exceeds what annotations provide: it explains that the tool does NOT serialize or fetch blockhash to preserve blockhash validity, details priority fee dynamics, auto-nonce setup with rent costs, memo handling with Ledger clear-signing, and that nonce setup occurs only on first send. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense and informative, but every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for behavior), but the front-loading of purpose and flow is good. Given the complexity, the length is justified.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the workflow, return type ('compact preview + opaque handle'), nonce setup details, and memo behavior. However, it does not fully specify all output fields, which would improve completeness.

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 enriches the schema descriptions: it explains that amount can be 'max' for full balance minus fee+safety buffer, clarifies memo's max bytes (256 UTF-8) and its use for invoice/payment-reference strings. While the schema already provides basic descriptions, the tool description adds practical nuance and context.

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 SOL native-transfer draft via SystemProgram.transfer, and distinguishes it from preview_solana_send (which serializes and fetches blockhash). This is a specific verb + resource with clear differentiation from sibling tools like prepare_solana_spl_send.

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 explicitly mentions the prerequisite (pair_ledger_solana once per session) and the three-step flow (prepare → preview → send). It explains when to use 'max' amount and the memo option. Though it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the context of native transfer vs. SPL is clear from sibling names.

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