prepare_erc20_transfer

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

With no annotations the description carries full behavioral burden, and it only partially delivers: it usefully discloses that amounts are in human units with decimals read on-chain. It omits whether the tool actually broadcasts (it only 'prepares'), whether an ERC-20 allowance/approval is required, and any interaction with request_wallet_approval.

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?

A single tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the most consequential detail (human units) is placed first. It is arguably too terse for a preparation/mutation tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 3-required-param operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves major gaps: it does not state that it prepares rather than executes, whether approval/allowance is needed, or what the caller gets back to pass into request_wallet_approval.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does so only for 'amount' by clarifying human units and on-chain decimal resolution — valuable since it prevents passing base units. token_address and recipient get no added meaning beyond their self-evident names.

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 (Prepare) and resource (ERC-20 transfer) and adds the qualifier 'direct', which distinguishes it from routed swap tools like prepare_buy_token. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling most likely to be confused with it (prepare_eth_transfer), but the token-standard contrast is implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'direct ERC-20 transfer' hints this is for straight token sends rather than swaps, but the description never says when to choose it over prepare_eth_transfer, prepare_buy_token, or prepare_sell_token, nor does it mention the follow-up approval step.

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