safe_transfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the screening step and conditional sending, but does not detail what happens if screening fails, what errors occur, or any prerequisites like token approvals or gas fees. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. Every word contributes to the understanding of the tool's purpose, with no wasted space. Highly concise and efficient.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover more details. It explains the main logic but omits what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash, error messages) and any prerequisites (e.g., wallet must have sufficient balance and possibly token approval). The description is adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for robust usage.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds workflow context (screening then sending) but does not enhance parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states a two-step workflow: screening the recipient with GoPlus, then sending the token only if safe. This distinguishes it from siblings like check_wallet_safety (screening only) and send_token (sending only), and specifies the resource (safe transfer) and action (screen then send).

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 using this tool when you want both screening and sending in one step, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like chaining check_wallet_safety with send_token, or when skipping safety checks is appropriate. The skip_safety_check parameter hints at a fallback but no explicit guidance is given.

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