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

No annotations provided. Description discloses automatic token approval and required private key, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, lacks details on failure handling or idempotency.

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 sentences, each essential. Front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisites and fee. No wasted words.

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?

With schema covering all params and no output schema, the description provides necessary context (network, approval, fee). Could mention return value or error conditions, but overall sufficient.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description does not add new information beyond the schema; the 'human-readable' note for amounts is already in schema.

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?

Clearly states it sends ERC-20 tokens to multiple recipients in a single transaction on Base. Distinguishes from sibling tool batch_send_eth by specifying ERC-20.

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?

Provides prerequisites (DEPLOYER_PRIVATE_KEY) and fee, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like batch_send_eth or estimate_batch.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the network (Base), required environment variable, and a fee. However, it does not explain failure modes, validation rules, or side effects beyond sending. Some behavioral context is present but gaps remain.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds a prerequisite, and the third mentions a fee. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, prerequisite, and fee. No output schema exists, but the description does not mention return values (e.g., transaction hash) that would be helpful. For a simple batch tool, it is mostly complete but missing minor return info.

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 both parameters are described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as constraints on array lengths or format of amounts. Baseline 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 the action: 'Send ETH to multiple recipients in a single transaction on Base.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tool 'batch_send_erc20' which handles ERC20 tokens.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires DEPLOYER_PRIVATE_KEY env var') and a fee, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., single send or other batch tools). Usage is implied but not fully guided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool estimates costs, implying a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, no funds are moved, or that multiple calls are safe. This is adequate but lacks explicit assurance of non-destructiveness.

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, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the purpose and usage. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence adds value.

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?

While inputs are well-covered by the schema (100% coverage), the description lacks any mention of the output format (e.g., what the estimate returns). For a tool that produces a result, this is a gap. However, given that output schema is absent, the description could have compensated by summarizing return values.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema; it only reinforces the usage context. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already 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: 'Estimate gas cost and total ETH needed for a batch send operation.' It uses a specific verb (estimate) and resource (gas cost, total ETH) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (batch_send_eth, batch_send_erc20, get_batch_info) by targeting pre-execution cost verification.

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 explicitly says 'Use before executing to verify costs,' which gives clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the sibling list implies alternatives for actual sending and information retrieval.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only and retrieves specific data (fee, addresses). No side effects or contradictions are present.

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 sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with main purpose, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough information (what is returned, when to use). Missing output format, but acceptable without output schema.

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?

The input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4, and description doesn't need to add parameter info.

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 gets BatchSender contract info including fee, treasury address, and contract address. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'BatchSender contract info', and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'before sending'.

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 explicitly says to use it to verify the contract is live and check fees before sending, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the sibling tools imply alternatives for sending.

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