Send RTC to another address by signing with the sender's private key, with an optional memo for the transfer.
Transfer RTC to another address (requires private key)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memo | No | Optional memo for the transfer | |
| amount | Yes | Amount of RTC to transfer | |
| to_address | Yes | Recipient address (RTCxxxx... format) | |
| from_private_key | Yes | Sender's private key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive financial operation. It notes the private-key requirement, but says nothing about irreversibility, fees, confirmation prompts, or what happens if the transfer fails or the key is invalid.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and its key constraint are both stated immediately.
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 value-transfer operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete: it omits irreversibility, fee/amount-units semantics, and any indication of the success/failure response an agent should expect.
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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's "requires private key" merely restates what the schema's required field already conveys, adding no new semantic detail such as amount precision or address validation.
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 concrete verb and resource ("Transfer RTC to another address") and is unambiguous about what the tool does. It is the only mutation tool among siblings that are all read-style (balance, miners, epoch, health, ledger, bounties), so it stands apart, though the description never explicitly differentiates itself.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites beyond the parenthetical private-key note, and no mention of failure handling or confirmation steps. Usage is only implied by the verb itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.