transfer_native

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Via managed custody' usefully discloses the custody model and the computedData prerequisite, but for an irreversible value transfer it says nothing about permissions/auth, gas or fee handling, reversibility, or failure modes.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the capability statement plus chain examples are front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. Nothing needs to be cut or moved.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, supported chains, and the key prerequisite. It leaves open how the caller obtains the encrypted computedData and how to track the transfer afterwards (e.g., managed_trade_status), which an agent would need for this class of operation.

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 100%, so both parameters (chainId, computedData) are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that computedData must be pre-built and encrypted but adds no format, source, or example beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Transfer) and resource (native asset) and enumerates concrete chains (ETH, SOL, SUI, BNB), which separates it from the token-transfer sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming transfer_token as the alternative, so the agent must infer the distinction from 'native asset' vs token.

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?

It gives one real prerequisite ('Requires pre-built encrypted computedData'), which tells the agent this is not a fire-and-forget call, but offers no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and never points to transfer_token, managed_purchase, or build_trade_payload as related routes.

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