Send Calls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavioral traits: ERC-5792 batching, and that fallback executes calls sequentially as individually user-approved transactions. It omits critical context such as what 'approved account' means, whether calls can partially succeed, and the implications of atomicRequired defaulting to true.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the fallback behavior. No filler; the only weakness is that the fallback sentence could read as implementation trivia if the agent isn't selecting between submission paths.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It covers the execution mechanism but omits the approval/permission model, failure semantics, and the distinction from four similarly named sibling submission tools.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, which already documents from, calls, chain, profileId, atomicRequired, and executionProfile.

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?

Clear and specific: 'Submit wallet calls through WalletChan RPC' states verb and mechanism. It does not, however, differentiate from the close siblings send_prepared_calls, agent_eoa_send_calls, or agent_oneshot_relay_calls, so an agent cannot tell from the description which of these four submission tools to use.

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?

Explains the internal fallback mechanism (ERC-5792 vs sequential) but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over send_transaction, send_prepared_calls, or the agent_eoa/oneshot variants. No prerequisites or preconditions are stated.

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