asa_transfer_txn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: the transaction is 'unsigned' (so not submitted) and closeRemainderTo will close the sender's holding. It does not mention potential side effects like address validation, balance checks, or error behavior, which leaves some gaps for a transaction builder.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core action and followed by key clarifications. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 builder with seven parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it builds, the unit of amount, and the close behavior. It implicitly communicates that the return is an unsigned transaction object, though it does not explicitly describe return format or error cases. Given the complexity, this is adequate but could be slightly more explicit.

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 coverage is 86%, so the description does not need to compensate much. It adds the clarification that amount is in base units and that closeRemainderTo closes the sender holding, but these are already stated in the schema properties. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Build' and identifies the resource as an 'ASA transfer (axfer)', which precisely names the operation. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like asa_optin_txn and asa_closeout_txn, and the parenthetical '(axfer)' roots it in the Algorand transaction type.

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 implies the use case: building a transfer transaction for an ASA. However, it does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives (e.g., 'for closing out, use asa_closeout_txn instead'). The context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool among ASA-related builders.

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