transferCoinListQuery

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and open-world. The description adds useful validation context: the two account types cannot be the same and both must be supported. It does not disclose error behavior or return format, but the safety profile is covered by annotations.

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 compact: one purpose sentence plus two directly actionable bullet constraints. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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 simple two-parameter read-only query, the description covers the core operation and key constraints. However, it omits supported account-type values and does not clarify how this tool differs from similarly named transfer query tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that fromAccountType and toAccountType represent account types and that they must differ and be supported, but it does not define the allowed values or what counts as a supported account type.

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 operation: query the list of coins transferable between specified account types. It identifies the resource and scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similarly named sibling tools like interTransferListQuery or universalTransferListQuery.

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 implies when to use the tool by focusing on account-type-based coin transfer queries and adds constraints. However, it does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or when a different transfer-related query tool should be used instead.

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