transfer_trx

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as irreversibility, network fees, or whether the transfer originates from the currently selected wallet. It fails to disclose any additional side effects or safety considerations.

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, well-formed sentence that directly states the purpose. It is concise and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

The description lacks important context for a destructive, non-idempotent operation. It does not explain the return value (e.g., transaction hash), the behavior when the optional amount is omitted, or the implications of the network parameter. This is especially problematic given the openWorldHint and no output schema.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (e.g., 'Amount to send in TRX (e.g., 10.5)', 'Network name. Defaults to mainnet.'), so the schema carries the burden. The description only aligns with the 'to' parameter and adds no extra meaning about amount or network.

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 TRX to an address' clearly states the action (transfer), resource (TRX), and destination (an address), distinguishing it from siblings like transfer_trc20 (which sends TRC20 tokens) and withdraw_balance (which likely withdraws from a contract). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites such as needing a selected wallet or sufficient balance. The description does not mention when not to use it or suggest any other tool for related operations.

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