Send Agent EOA Calls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two critical traits: the path is non-atomic (partial-failure risk across sequential calls) and it bypasses WalletChan popup approval (no interactive user confirmation). These are exactly the risk-relevant facts an agent needs. It omits prerequisites/permissions and what happens on mid-sequence failure, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key caveats. No filler and nothing redundant with the structured fields.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the most important behavioral facts (non-atomic, bypasses approval) and the schema fully documents parameters. It leaves out failure/revert behavior and auth prerequisites, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 calls, chain, walletId, and profileId, including the agent-eoa alias rule. The description adds only 'sequentially' as ordering semantics, which is the baseline-3 situation where 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?

States a specific verb pair (sign and broadcast) and resource (calls) with a clear source (raw local agent EOA). It scopes the operation ('sequentially', 'from a raw local agent EOA'), which helps separate it from generic send paths, but it never names siblings like agent_eoa_send_transaction or send_calls to make the routing explicit.

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 line 'This path is not atomic and bypasses WalletChan popup approval' implies when this path is appropriate (agent-driven, no user confirmation) and hints at a tradeoff, but it does not state when to prefer an alternative such as send_calls or agent_oneshot_relay_calls. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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