Transfer ERC20 or SPL tokens through managed custody using a pre-built encrypted computedData payload. Use it to move assets securely across supported chains via GDEX Trading.
Transfer ERC20 / SPL token via managed custody. Requires pre-built encrypted computedData.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chainId | No | Optional chain id hint | |
| computedData | Yes | Encrypted computedData payload |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.11.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It notes managed custody and the encrypted payload requirement, but says nothing about irreversibility of a transfer, permission/authentication needs, or what the response contains – a serious gap for a fund-moving mutation tool.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the resource type and the prerequisite are both stated efficiently. It is terse but not padded, which is appropriate.
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 value-transfer tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits how computedData is obtained (likely from build_trade_payload), whether the transfer is irreversible, and what happens on success or failure. An agent cannot call it correctly without inferring the workflow.
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 chainId and computedData are already documented in the schema. The description restates the computedData requirement without adding format, source, or construction details, so it stays at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.
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 (ERC20 / SPL token) plus the mechanism (managed custody), which implicitly separates it from the sibling transfer_native that handles native assets. It is clear, though it never explicitly names the sibling it complements or contrasts with.
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 supplies one prerequisite ('Requires pre-built encrypted computedData'), which is useful context, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over managed_purchase, managed_sell, or build_trade_payload, nor any exclusions. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.