BSC MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'buy meme token' implies a financial transaction but fails to disclose critical traits such as authentication needs, potential costs (e.g., gas fees), rate limits, or what happens upon execution (e.g., token transfer confirmation). This is inadequate for a tool likely involving monetary risk.

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 extremely concise with just three words, which could be seen as efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized, as it lacks necessary details for a tool with financial implications. It is front-loaded but fails to provide essential context, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description.

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 complexity of a financial transaction tool with no annotations, 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent unable to use it safely or effectively in context with siblings like 'sellMemeToken'.

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 0%, meaning parameters 'bnbValue', 'token', and 'tokenValue' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, such as their roles (e.g., 'token' as the token to buy, 'bnbValue' as BNB amount), formats, or interactions. This leaves the agent guessing about required inputs.

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 'buy meme token' restates the tool name 'buyMemeToken' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'buy' and resource 'meme token', but lacks detail on what this entails (e.g., on which platform, for what purpose) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'sellMemeToken' or 'pancakeSwap', which are related to token transactions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., wallet setup, token availability), context for use (e.g., trading scenarios), or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage compared to siblings like 'sellMemeToken' or 'pancakeSwap'.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It does not disclose if this is a destructive operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the expected outcome is, making it inadequate for a 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 extremely concise with no wasted words, consisting of a single phrase. However, this brevity leads to under-specification rather than effective communication.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about the three required parameters (name, symbol, totalSupply). It fails to explain what these parameters mean, their formats, or constraints, leaving them entirely undocumented.

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 'create bep20 token' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'bep20 token', but lacks detail about what a BEP20 token is or distinguishes it from sibling tools like createFourMeme or transferBEP20Token.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone among multiple token-related siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'create new meme token' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, whether this operation is reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens upon successful creation. For a creation tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 creation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what the return value might be, or provide context about the four.meme platform that would help an agent understand the tool's role within the broader ecosystem of sibling tools.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format requirements for 'imgUrl' or what 'preSale' value represents). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('create new meme token') and target resource ('on four.meme'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'createBEP20Token' or 'buyMemeToken' in terms of what makes this creation operation unique to the four.meme platform versus other token creation tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'createBEP20Token' or 'buyMemeToken'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't cover aspects like read-only nature, error handling, rate limits, or what 'wallet info' includes, which is insufficient for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and output format, failing to provide enough context for effective agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'address' but doesn't explain its format, constraints, or if it's required, leaving the single parameter poorly defined.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('wallet info for an address'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'securityCheck' or 'pancakeMyPosition' that might also retrieve wallet-related data, so it's not fully specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid address, or compare it to siblings like 'securityCheck' for wallet security info, leaving usage context unclear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or response format. For a financial tool like adding liquidity, this lack of transparency on risks or outcomes is inadequate.

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 concise with a single phrase, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded detail and wastes an opportunity to clarify purpose or usage, making it minimally structured but not helpful.

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 complexity of a DeFi liquidity tool, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like transaction behavior, error handling, or return values, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, with 4 parameters undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what token0, token1, token0Amount, and token1Amount represent or their expected formats, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 'add liquidity to pancake' restates the tool name 'pancakeAddLiquidity' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the action ('add liquidity') and target ('pancake'), but lacks detail on what 'pancake' refers to (likely PancakeSwap) or what 'liquidity' entails, offering only basic purpose without distinguishing from siblings like pancakeSwap or pancakeRemovePosition.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools such as pancakeSwap or pancakeRemovePosition, leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a read operation ('check'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or what data is returned (e.g., position details, value). This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with DeFi protocols.

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 but contains a typo ('panceke'), which undermines clarity. It's front-loaded with the core action, but the error reduces effectiveness, making it less than ideal for conciseness.

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 complexity of DeFi liquidity positions and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., token amounts, fees, value), leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior and output.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given no parameters exist, aligning with the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 the purpose ('check my liquidity position') but is vague about what 'panceke' refers to (likely a typo for PancakeSwap). It distinguishes from siblings like 'pancakeAddLiquidity' and 'pancakeRemovePosition' by focusing on checking rather than modifying positions, but the typo reduces clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for checking liquidity positions, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing an active position) or contrast with similar tools like 'getWalletInfo' for broader wallet data.

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

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 states 'remove liquidity position' which implies a destructive mutation, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as irreversible effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens to the removed liquidity. This is a significant gap for a 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 a single, concise sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The typo ('panceke') detracts from clarity, and it lacks front-loaded critical details, making it minimally adequate but not well-structured.

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 (a destructive mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the operation's impact, return values, or necessary context, leaving major gaps for an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'liquidity position' which hints at 'positionId', but does not explain what 'percent' means (e.g., partial removal) or provide any details on parameter formats, constraints, or semantics beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 'remove liquidity position on panceke' states the action and resource but is vague and contains a typo ('panceke' instead of 'pancake'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'pancakeAddLiquidity' and 'pancakeSwap' by specifying removal, but lacks specificity about what a 'liquidity position' entails or the platform context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing position), exclusions, or related tools like 'pancakeMyPosition' for checking positions before removal. The description implies usage but offers no explicit context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions or authentication are needed, potential rate limits, transaction costs, or what happens on failure. The description is functional but lacks critical operational context.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that states the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no space on redundant or verbose explanations.

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 token swapping tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It explains what the tool does at a high level but provides no guidance on usage, no parameter explanations, no behavioral context, and no information about what the tool returns or how to interpret results.

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?

The description provides no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name. With 0% schema description coverage and 3 required parameters, the description fails to explain what 'amount', 'inputToken', and 'outputToken' represent, their expected formats, or any constraints. The baseline would be lower than 3 given the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 action ('swap tokens') and specifies the resource/context ('in BSC chain via PancakeSwap'), which distinguishes it from generic token transfer tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'buyMemeToken' or 'sellMemeToken' that might also involve swapping operations.

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 provides minimal context ('in BSC chain via PancakeSwap') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'buyMemeToken', 'sellMemeToken', or 'transferBEP20Token'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a 'check' but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether it makes external API calls, or what the typical response format looks like. For a security tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just four words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness - it's arguably too terse for a tool that needs to explain security checking behavior and parameter usage.

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 security checking tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'security' means in this context, what the tool actually checks, what format the results come in, or how to interpret them. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the single parameter 'tokenAddress' is undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention this parameter at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. It doesn't explain what format the token address should be in (e.g., BSC address format) or provide any semantic context.

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 the tool's purpose as checking security of BSC tokens, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what 'security' means in this context (e.g., audit status, vulnerabilities, scam detection) or how it distinguishes from sibling tools like getWalletInfo that might provide related information. The purpose is understandable but somewhat vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like getWalletInfo that might overlap with security aspects, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'sell' without explaining consequences (e.g., irreversible transaction, fees, authorization needs, rate limits), making it inadequate for a mutation tool with potential financial implications.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded and zero waste. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but as per scoring rules, it earns full marks for brevity and structure.

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 complexity of a financial transaction tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It lacks essential details on behavior, parameters, and outcomes, failing to provide a complete context for safe and effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It provides no information about 'token' or 'tokenValue' (e.g., format, units, examples), leaving both parameters undocumented and unclear in meaning.

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 'sell meme token' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'sell' and resource 'meme token', but lacks detail on what selling entails (e.g., on which platform, to whom) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'transferBEP20Token' or 'pancakeSwap', which might involve similar token transactions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a wallet), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'buyMemeToken' or 'pancakeSwap', leaving the agent with no context for selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Transfer BEP-20 token'), without mentioning critical behavioral aspects such as whether this is a destructive/mutative operation, permission requirements, transaction costs, network implications, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves blockchain transactions.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a blockchain token transfer tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., mutative nature, gas fees), parameter specifics, return values, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (amount, recipientAddress, token) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'token' can be specified 'by symbol or address', but doesn't explain the format or units for 'amount' (e.g., decimals, string representation), the expected format for 'recipientAddress' (e.g., valid BSC address), or provide examples. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Transfer') and resource ('BEP-20 token'), specifying it can be done 'by symbol or address'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'transferNativeToken' which handles a different token type. However, it doesn't explicitly mention it's for BEP-20 tokens specifically versus other token standards.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the description implies it's for BEP-20 tokens (distinguishing it from 'transferNativeToken'), it doesn't mention when to use it over other sibling tools like 'buyMemeToken' or 'sellMemeToken', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('transfer') but lacks critical details: whether this is a write operation (implied but not confirmed), permission requirements, network fees, confirmation times, or error conditions. For a financial transaction tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick scanning, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 (financial transaction), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error handling, security implications, or operational details needed for safe and effective use. The agent lacks sufficient context to invoke this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds no information about parameters beyond what's inferred from their names ('amount' and 'recipientAddress'). It doesn't specify format (e.g., amount in wei or BNB, address validation), units, or constraints, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('transfer') and resource ('native token (BNB)'), providing specific verb+resource information. It distinguishes from sibling 'transferBEP20Token' by specifying 'native token' versus BEP20 token, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transferBEP20Token' or other sibling tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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