send_native

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly marks the tool as 'STATE-CHANGING: spends funds', which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not elaborate on failure modes, permissions, or reversibility, leaving some gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that state the core purpose and the key behavioral note. Every word is necessary, front-loaded with the action. No fluff.

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 the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and state-changing nature. It lacks details about return values or error handling, but for a simple send operation, it is reasonably complete and actionable.

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%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema already explain 'to', 'amount', and 'network' adequately. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Sign and broadcast a native currency transfer' with verb+resource, distinguishes from siblings like send_token by specifying 'native currency' and 'configured wallet', and adds state-changing context. No ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool. It mentions 'native currency' which implicitly distinguishes from token transfers, but lacks direct guidance on alternatives or prerequisites. The inference is possible but not explicit.

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