Get Transfer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape ('live status plus on-chain tx_hash when available'), but says nothing about error behavior for missing/invalid ids or eventual consistency of status.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, plus a compact note on return contents. The Args block duplicates the schema and is redundant, costing a bit of tightness but not readability.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately discloses what is returned (live status and tx_hash). For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage this is close to complete; minor gaps are error semantics and any status-field enumeration.

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 single transfer_id parameter is already documented. The description's 'Args' block merely restates the schema, adding no format hints (e.g., id shape or example) or semantics beyond what's structured. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get details of a single crypto transfer by its transfer_id'), and the word 'single' implicitly contrasts with the sibling ashar_list_transfers. It doesn't name the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction, which keeps it below a 5.

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: fetching one transfer is obviously distinct from listing, but the description never says when to use this vs ashar_list_transfers or what happens if the id is unknown. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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