transfer_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses the key behavioral trait: the transfer is NOT submitted and no mutation occurs. It does not add extra context like auth requirements, but for a read-only preview that is less critical.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action and the crucial 'no submission' behavior immediately.

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?

The description is strong behaviorally, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, it leaves a key gap: the format and meaning of sell/buy parameters and team_id are undocumented, so the agent must infer what values to pass.

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%, but the description does not clarify what sell/buy expect (e.g., player IDs, names, or player codes), nor what team_id means. The words 'sell' and 'buy' imply a transfer direction, but that is inferred rather than explained.

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 identifies the specific action ('Show what a transfer would do') and explicitly states its scope: funds and position, without submitting. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like make_transfer and transfer_history.

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 clearly positions the tool as a pre-execution preview, so an agent can infer when to use it before making a transfer. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool or provide formal when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of the highest tier.

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