List Transfers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral details not in the annotations: results come back newest-first and the response is paginated with a total count. It stops short of describing the shape of an individual transfer or rate-limit behavior.

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 purpose and ordering are front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact parameter list and return note. Slight redundancy between the Args block and the schema descriptions keeps it from being maximally tight.

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 small, fully optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (a paginated list with total count) and the ordering. The only meaningful gap is the absent set of valid status values, which no enum supplies.

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 three parameters (status, limit, offset with defaults and max) are fully documented in structured data. The Args block restates the same facts (default 50, max 1000, default 0) without adding meaning such as valid status values or how status filtering interacts with pagination.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List crypto transfers for the tenant") plus a default ordering ("newest first"), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling ashar_get_transfer for a single transfer, but the list-vs-get distinction is largely self-evident from the name.

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?

There is no statement about when to use this tool versus ashar_get_transfer or the other list endpoints, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. Usage is only inferred from the word "List".

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