confirm_transfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behaviors. It states the tool 'executes' a transfer, implying a write/destructive action, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or reversibility. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Description is extremely concise: two sentences that immediately state the purpose and a key usage condition. No filler or redundant information. Ideal length for a simple tool.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description lacks critical details such as where the confirmation token comes from (typically returned by the 'transfer' tool), error scenarios, and any prerequisites. With no output schema, the return value is also unexplained, making the tool incomplete for an agent.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'confirmation_token' parameter beyond what the schema provides (UUID format). The token's origin (e.g., from a prior 'transfer' call) is not mentioned, leaving the agent without essential context.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Confirm and execute' and resource 'pending transfer', making the action specific. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'transfer' by indicating this is a confirmation step, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

Description provides one usage condition: 'Required when MONERO_REQUIRE_CONFIRMATION=true.' This tells the agent when to use, but no when-not or alternatives are mentioned, such as cases where confirmation is not needed or other tools to use instead.

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