send_token

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

The description labels the tool as 'STATE-CHANGING' but provides no further behavioral details such as authorization requirements, side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 very concise with two sentences and front-loads the core action. However, the phrase 'STATE-CHANGING' is somewhat redundant and could be omitted to improve conciseness further.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details about return values (e.g., transaction hash), error cases, or setup requirements (e.g., wallet configuration). The tool is incomplete for practical use without additional 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds meaningful value by explaining that the amount is converted using the token's decimals, which is not in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters like 'to' or 'network' defaults.

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 verb ('sign and broadcast') and resource ('ERC-20 transfer'), and adds the specific detail about converting amount using token decimals. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_native (native token) and simulate_transaction (simulation).

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 implies usage for ERC-20 transfers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., send_native, write_contract) or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Guidance is only implicit.

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