transfer_rune

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a Bitcoin transaction is constructed, that the remainder is returned to the sender's Taproot address (change behavior), the wallet-unlock prerequisite, and an external dependency on the Unisat indexer with an API-key note. It omits whether the transaction is broadcast automatically and what is returned, and says nothing about fee selection beyond the schema.

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?

Core behavior is front-loaded in the first two sentences and each of those earns its place. The closing "Tip: call earning_opportunities..." is promotional and unrelated to performing a transfer, slightly diluting focus.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mechanics, the change output, the unlock prerequisite, and the indexer dependency. What is missing is the terminal outcome — whether it broadcasts and returns a txid, and failure/irreversibility behavior.

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 schema already documents runeId format, amount units, feeRate presets, and toAddress. The description only restates the amount unit convention, adding nothing above the structured data; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (transfer runes) plus the exact mechanism (Runestone OP_RETURN encoding), which cleanly separates it from siblings like transfer_btc, transfer_token, transfer_nft, and the read-only runes_* / get_rune_* 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?

Gives a real prerequisite ("Requires wallet to be unlocked") and the unit convention, but never says when to use this versus alternatives such as ordinals_p2p_transfer or the runes_* query tools, nor any exclusion. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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