fomo_transfers_with

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses nothing about whether the operation is read-only or mutating, what the response contains, pagination, or whether user context is required.

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 only five words and contains no redundancy, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It does not earn its place because it provides almost no useful information beyond the tool name.

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?

With one parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and a fragment of a description, the tool is not adequately described. An agent has no way to know the expected input semantics, return value, or side effects.

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 coverage is 0%, and the schema only says userId is a required string. The phrase 'another user' suggests userId identifies the other party, but it does not clarify ID format, whose perspective is used, or whether this is the counterparty or the subject.

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 'Transfers with another user' is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'get', 'list', 'send', or 'execute', so an agent cannot tell whether this returns transfer history or performs a transfer.

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, what prerequisites apply, or how it differs from sibling tools like fomo_supported_transfer_tokens or fomo_trading_activity. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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