send_payment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: immediate execution within limits, queuing for owner approval if exceeding limits, and the need to check limits first. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth needs, but provides substantial operational context.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: purpose, conditional behavior, and prerequisite action. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words—and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 payment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the execution flow (immediate vs. queued) and linking to related tools. It could mention return values (tx hash) more explicitly, but overall it's quite complete given the context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain token address format or memo usage further). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Send ETH or ERC20 tokens from the Agent Wallet.' It specifies the action (send), resources (ETH/ERC20 tokens), and source (Agent Wallet), distinguishing it from siblings like check_spend_limit or get_transaction_history.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Always check spend limits first with check_spend_limit to avoid surprises.' It also explains what happens if limits are exceeded (queued for approval, use queue_approval to manage), offering clear context and exclusions.

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