transfer_nft

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden. It merely states what the function does, offering no behavioral traits such as gas cost implications, transaction success conditions, or failure modes inherent to an NFT transfer.

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 definition is concise and front-loads the primary function immediately. Although the secondary sentence is advisory, it is brief and adds minimal friction to understanding the core operation.

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 function dealing with complex, high-value NFT transactions, the description is highly incomplete. It lacks crucial context regarding transaction failure modes, required signatures, or the financial implications of the fee parameter beyond listing its existence.

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 coverage is 100%, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds minimal semantic value, simply restating that the transfer targets a recipient address and mentions the optional fee, which is already well-defined in the input 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 clearly identifies the action (transfer) and the asset class (NFT/SIP-009), making its purpose transparent. However, given the extensive list of sibling tools, the distinction between 'transfer_nft' and other token transfer functions relies solely on the explicit mention of 'NFT' and the protocol identifier SIP-009.

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 a 'Tip' to check `earning_opportunities`, which suggests related functionality but does not provide explicit usage guidelines or define when *not* to use this tool compared to other transfer mechanisms. It suggests a next step, not a constraint on the current step.

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