evm_transfer_erc20

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

Annotations already disclose destructive and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context by explaining the amount is in smallest units and giving a concrete USDC example, which goes beyond what annotations provide. It also directs the user to check decimals, a key behavioral nuance. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes useful information: what it does, the unit nuance, and a practical tip.

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 the tool is straightforward and schema/annotations cover parameters and safety, the absence of an output schema means the description should explain expected return values (e.g., transaction hash, receipt). It does not, nor does it mention what happens after broadcast or any other prerequisites, leaving a gap in completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds extra meaning by providing a real-world example and cross-referencing evm_get_token_balance, particularly enriching the 'amount' parameter's semantics beyond the schema's 'wei-equivalent' note.

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 'Transfer ERC-20 tokens' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like evm_transfer_native by explicitly focusing on ERC-20 tokens. The added decimal example reinforces the tool's specific purpose.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: 'Use evm_get_token_balance to check decimals first,' which guides the user on a necessary step. It implicitly indicates this is for ERC-20 transfers, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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