wallet_transfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'transfer', implying mutation, but lacks details on fees, reversibility, authorization requirements, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a transfer operation.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it may be too short to fully serve its 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 has 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description should provide sufficient context. It only describes the basic function, omitting important aspects like error handling, permissions, or return behavior. It is not complete enough for an agent to use without additional information.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a usage example ('Spot ↔ Futures') but does not go beyond the schema descriptions. It adds minimal extra 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 clearly states the tool transfers between Kraken wallet types, with a concrete example (Spot ↔ Futures). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like account_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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like account_transfer or withdraw. The example gives context but no when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.

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