asa_closeout_txn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the transaction is unsigned, that it sets closeRemainderTo to close the holding, and that the amount must be the full balance. This covers key behavioral traits without contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and a critical usage constraint without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's main effect (closing an ASA holding), the required amount behavior, and the transaction type. The schema fills in parameter details. It could be slightly more explicit about the consequences of not supplying the full balance, but overall it is complete for a transaction builder.

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 schema has 100% coverage and all parameters have descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a helpful global note about supplying the full balance as amount, but this aligns with the schema's 'Whole balance to move in base units.' No additional parameter-level meaning is provided 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?

The description clearly states the tool builds an unsigned ASA transfer that closes the sender's holding via closeRemainderTo, distinguishing it from a standard asa_transfer_txn. It uses specific verbs and resources ('closes the sender's holding') and is unambiguous about its unique 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 when to use this tool: to close out an ASA holding entirely. It provides clear context with 'closes the sender's holding' and instructs to 'supply full balance as amount,' which is a crucial usage guideline. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool set makes the distinction evident.

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