token_transfers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. The phrase 'recent' is ambiguous regarding time window.

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 very short (four words), which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It front-loads the core purpose but lacks structure. Every sentence should earn its place; here, there is only one phrase, but it could be improved with a more informative sentence.

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 lack of schema descriptions, no output schema, and only 2 parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'recent' means, how to interpret the results, or what happens when 'limit' is omitted. The tool's behavior is under-specified.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It only hints at the 'token' parameter ('specific token') but does not explain format (e.g., address or symbol). The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all. Minimal value added beyond schema names.

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 'Recent transfers of a specific token' clearly identifies the tool as retrieving recent transfers for a given token. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'address_token_transfers' (which is address-scoped) and 'token_transfer_history' (likely historical). However, it could be more precise by specifying 'list' or 'retrieve' explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist (e.g., 'address_token_transfers', 'token_transfer_history') but no differentiation or exclusion is provided. The description leaves the agent to infer appropriate context.

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