transfer_trc20

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation nature is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as irreversibility, network broadcast, or fee implications. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also doesn't enrich beyond what structured data already reveals.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the verb and object. It is appropriately sized for a simple transfer operation, with no extraneous words or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the schema covers all parameters and annotations declare the tool destructive, the description provides minimal but sufficient context for the core action. However, it omits higher-level details such as broadcast behavior, network defaults, or wallet prerequisites. It is adequate but not rich, especially for a tool that moves value.

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 describes all four parameters (tokenAddress, to, amount, network) with 100% coverage and clear descriptions, including that 'amount' is raw amount with decimals. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, 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 'Transfer TRC20 tokens to an address' uses a specific verb ('transfer') and clearly identifies the resource (TRC20 tokens) and destination (address). It distinguishes logically from sibling tools like transfer_trx, which transfers TRX or other tokens.

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 implies a use case (when you want to transfer TRC20 tokens) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, or how it differs from alternatives like transfer_trx or write_contract. No prerequisites or contextual triggers are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the token type.

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