transfer_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions input and output types but omits critical details like network fees, authorization requirements, or whether the transfer is atomic. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 very concise (two sentences), but at the expense of missing essential information. It is front-loaded with the core action, yet lacks depth. Every sentence should earn its place, and here they are too brief to be useful.

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 no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to mention preconditions (e.g., checking balances with get_wallet_token_balance), postconditions, or error states. The output schema exists but is not explained, leaving the agent without a full picture.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage according to context, the description adds no value beyond restating the expected input format. It does not explain how to construct the TransferTokensRequestContainer or clarify parameter usage, leaving the agent without necessary semantics.

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 action ('Transfer tokens') and the resource ('from one wallet to another'), which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like swap_transaction or create_order. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar transfer or order 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as swap_transaction for swaps or create_order for limit orders. The description gives no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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