icp_transfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a fixed fee of 0.0001 ICP, which is a useful behavioral detail for a transfer operation. However, it does not mention that the transfer is irreversible, that authentication is required, or how the fee affects the transaction (e.g., whether the fee is deducted from the amount or added to the sender's cost).

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 two short sentences, each adding value: the transfer operation and the fee. There is no redundant or irrelevant content, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 simple transfer tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose and fee, but leaves gaps: it does not clarify how the fee is applied (net vs gross amount) or that transfers are permanent and require proper authorization. These are important details for a financial operation, so the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

All three parameters have detailed descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'Destination account ID (hex string, 64 characters)' and 'Amount in ICP (e.g., 1.5 for 1.5 ICP)'), providing 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the overall fee, so it does not exceed the baseline for this dimension.

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 clearly states the verb 'Transfer' with resource 'ICP' and target 'another account', making it distinct from sibling tools like balance checks or canister operations. The inclusion of the fee adds specificity and reinforces the purpose.

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?

The description implies usage for transferring ICP between accounts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like icp_to_cycles or icp_check_balance. The fee is mentioned, providing some context, but there are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites.

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