transfer_native_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it's a read-only or write operation (implied write from 'transfer'), authentication requirements beyond the private key parameter, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on failure. The description lacks transparency about the tool's operational behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool that performs financial transactions (implied by 'transfer') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover authentication needs, security implications, error handling, or return values. Given the complexity and potential risks of token transfers, the description should provide more context about behavior and outcomes.

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 four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or provide examples of valid combinations. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone.

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 ('native tokens') with examples of specific tokens (BNB, ETH, MATIC). It distinguishes from sibling tools like transfer_erc20 and transfer_erc1155 by specifying 'native tokens' rather than token standards. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the blockchain context that would further differentiate it from generic transfers.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like transfer_erc20 or transfer_nft. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a private key, sufficient balance), nor does it clarify network-specific considerations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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