magicblock transfer

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive. The description adds context like 'unsigned', 'delayed settlement', 'split transfers', 'gasless mode', and 'private/public' visibility, which go beyond the annotations and clarify the tool's non-finalizing nature.

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 paragraph of four sentences that covers the main purpose, features, and workflow without redundancy. However, it could be more scannable with structured sections for parameters or use cases.

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, optional features like split and delayed settlement), the description provides a solid high-level overview but does not fully explain parameter interdependencies or the mechanics of private transfers. An output schema exists, somewhat compensating for return value details.

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 100% with each parameter described. The description adds some high-level grouping (e.g., 'base/ephemeral source and destination') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 SPL token transfer via Ephemeral Rollup, specifying verb ('Build'), resource ('unsigned SPL token transfer'), and unique context ('public or private', 'Ephemeral Rollup'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like spl-token_transfer by emphasizing the rollup and subsequent workflow.

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 explicitly indicates the follow-up tools (sap_preview_transaction, sap_sign_transaction, sap_submit_signed_transaction) to complete the transaction lifecycle. It also mentions builder fee, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or specific exclusions.

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