magicblock transfer

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly, non-idempotent. The description adds value by explicitly stating the tool builds an 'unsigned' transfer (implying no execution) and includes pricing ($0.05). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences front-load purpose and key features. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Slight deduction for not including usage guidance that could be expected in a concise format.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (20 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers main use cases and features. However, it could better explain the public vs. private distinction and when to use derived parameters like maxDelayMs. Return values are presumably covered by output schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes features (e.g., gasless, split) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Build'), resource ('unsigned SPL token transfer'), and context ('through an Ephemeral Rollup'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like spl-token_transfer or jupiter_swap that execute transfers.

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 lists supported features (e.g., public/private, delayed settlement) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over other transfer or swap tools in the sibling list. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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