transfer_tokens

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as irreversibility, required approvals, gas costs, or latency. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the basic 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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and then specifying input/output structure. It is efficient with no wasted words.

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?

Despite having a nested input schema and no annotations, the description omits critical context like error handling, return value format, and side effects. The existence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of behavioral context.

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 description adds no parameter details beyond referring to the request container. The schema itself has detailed descriptions for parameters, but the context indicates 0% schema description coverage, meaning the description should compensate. It fails to do so.

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), resource (tokens), and direction (from one wallet to another). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings that handle swaps or orders, though it could be more explicit about the token type (e.g., ERC-20).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like swap_transaction or create_order. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., sufficient balance) or conditions (e.g., network fees).

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