transfer_vet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention irreversibility, signing requirements, transaction fees, or side effects, which are critical for a fund-transferring mutation. The description is functionally a tautology of the tool's purpose, providing no additional behavioral 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant phrasing.

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 tool has a simple, fully documented parameter schema, but the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., on-chain execution, irreversibility, output format). Without annotations or output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves important operational details unstated.

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% with clear parameter descriptions ('to', 'amount' in VET, optional 'memo'). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already documents all fields, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 resource ('VET'), explicitly noting 'native VeChain tokens' to distinguish from token transfers like VIP180. This clarity differentiates it from siblings such as transfer_token and nft_transfer.

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 does not provide when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context. There is no mention of prerequisites like sufficient balance or that this tool is for native VET only, unlike transfer_token.

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