transfer_erc20

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('transfer') but lacks details on critical behaviors: it doesn't mention that this is a write operation requiring gas fees, potential for transaction failure, confirmation times, or that it modifies blockchain state. The description is minimal and misses key operational context needed for safe use.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 complexity (a blockchain write operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks (e.g., irreversible transfers, gas costs), success/failure outcomes, or integration with sibling tools like 'estimate_gas'. For a tool with significant implications, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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') and resource ('ERC20 tokens'), specifying the target ('to an address'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'transfer_native_token' and 'transfer_nft' by specifying ERC20 tokens, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'transfer_erc1155' beyond the token type. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about sibling differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing token approval via 'approve_token_spending'), network selection considerations, or when to choose this over other transfer tools like 'transfer_native_token'. Usage is implied from the name and parameters but not articulated.

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