xrp_transfer_token

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic transfer action. It does not disclose side effects like transaction fees, need for trustlines, potential failures, or what happens upon success. The full behavioral burden falls on the description, which is inadequate.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but lacks additional context or structure.

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 transaction tool with five required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits important context like how to obtain the privateKey, what constitutes a valid issuer, amount formatting, and expected behavior on success or error.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, such as format constraints or relationships between parameters.

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 action (transfer), the resource (custom tokens), and the parties (between accounts). It distinguishes from similar tools like xrp_send_token by specifying 'custom tokens', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xrp_send_token or xrp_approve_token. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a trustline, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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