transfer_token

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states the action without disclosing that this is a blockchain transaction, may require signing/authentication, may fail due to insufficient balance, or may be irreversible. The return value and side effects are also undisclosed.

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?

Single sentence, 9 words, front-loaded with action and resource, no filler.

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 four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It omits crucial context about the transaction lifecycle, potential failure modes, prerequisites, and return values.

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 descriptions cover all four parameters, so baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces the tokenSymbol examples and confirms the 'to' parameter is an address, but adds no new syntax, dependencies, or format details beyond 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?

Clearly states the action (Transfer), the resource (VIP-180 tokens), and the destination (another address). The inclusion of example tokens (VTHO, B3TR) distinguishes it from native VET transfer and NFT transfer siblings.

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 specifies the target asset class (VIP-180 tokens), which implies the primary use case and differentiates from transfer_vet (native VET). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of a full usage guideline.

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