mb_internal_transfer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the confirmation requirement and the two-step preview/execute workflow, which is useful behavioral context. But it does not mention side effects (e.g., balance changes), prerequisites (e.g., sufficient funds), or what the preview returns, leaving gaps for a financial mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information (scope and confirmation workflow). No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose and usage flow, but it omits what the preview returns (no output schema exists to compensate) and does not mention any prerequisites or limitations. For a 5-parameter transaction tool with no annotations, this leaves the agent without full context on expected responses or preconditions.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the workflow context for the confirm parameter (preview vs. execute), but this largely mirrors the schema description 'Set true to execute after preview'. No additional meaning is given for accountId, symbol, amount, or recipientAccountId 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 description uses a specific verb ('Transfer') and names the exact resource ('asset between your own Mercado Bitcoin accounts (sub-wallets)'), clearly distinguishing this from trading tools like mb_place_order. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'between your own accounts' clarifies when this tool is appropriate, and the two-step confirmation flow ('call first with confirm=false to preview, then confirm=true to execute') gives concrete instructions. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it.

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