Transfer Ordinal or Domain

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

Beyond annotations that mark this as destructive, the description explains the 1SatOrdinals transaction construction, the unspent verification via ORDnet's own node, and the miner-fee-only policy. This adds significant operational context not visible in 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?

The description is compact and well-organized: a clear first sentence, a brief technical semantics paragraph, and explicit Args/Returns sections. No unnecessary text; each part 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?

For a transfer tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, construction semantics, and verification behavior. This gives an agent enough to invoke the tool confidently.

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%, so all parameters are already described in the schema. The Args section repeats the schema descriptions without adding substantial new meaning. The 'usually 0' note for inscriptionVout is also present in the schema, so the description adds little 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 opening line identifies a specific action ('Transfer') and a specific resource ('an inscription'), and enumerates the inscription types. This differentiates it from sibling tools like ordnet_send, ordnet_domain_register, etc.

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 usage for transferring inscriptions, listing the inscription types. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to distinguish from generic send tools.

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