transfer_from

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the openWorldHint annotation already signals. It does not disclose that this executes a blockchain transaction, requires signing/gas, or may have side effects like changing token balances on-chain. No additional traits are revealed.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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?

Despite having annotations, the description is minimal and omits critical context for a state-changing blockchain operation: no mention of wallet requirements, gas, execution mechanics, return values (no output schema), or how chainId affects behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to use safely.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters ('tokenAddress', 'from', 'to', 'amount', 'chainId'). The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Transfer an amount of an ERC20 token') and the source/destination ('from an address to another address'). It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'transfer' or 'evm_transfer_erc20' which likely perform similar operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., wallet connection, gas requirements). It simply restates the function without contextual usage hints.

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