hl_transfer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the single-direction constraint, whole-dollar granularity with the dashboard's cents-as-tracking-tag quirk (which explains why slightly less than requested is sent), a one-transfer-at-a-time concurrency rule, the reconciliation path for an unresolved transfer, and the owner-set daily limit. These are non-obvious operational traits an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Five short sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus direction constraint are front-loaded before the operational caveats. Every sentence conveys a distinct, necessary fact.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone for a 2-parameter mutation, and it does: direction limits, amount semantics, concurrency, failure reconciliation, and the daily cap are all covered. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining why amounts are whole dollars and why the executed amount may be lower than requested, which prevents a false 'transfer failed' conclusion. It stops short of adding new syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb, resource, and direction: 'Move USDC from the spot account into the perp account so it can back trades.' It explicitly negates the reverse direction ('perp-to-spot does not exist here, deliberately'), so an agent can distinguish it from hl_swap or hl_transfer_status without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rationale (to back trades), an explicit exclusion (no perp-to-spot), a routing rule to a named sibling ('reconcile with hl_transfer_status before retrying'), and a constraint (daily limit). This is the full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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