transfer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the action signs and broadcasts transactions (indicating a write/mutation operation), mentions automatic conversion to wei/lamports, and lists supported tokens. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like gas fees, confirmation times, or error conditions.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by essential usage details. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second specifies format, and the third reveals key implementation behavior. Zero 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does reasonably well by explaining the core operation, supported tokens, and transaction behavior. However, it lacks information about return values (transaction hash? confirmation?), error cases, or prerequisites (wallet must be funded/unlocked). Given the complexity of blockchain transactions, some gaps remain.

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 already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the 'amount' parameter format example, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or constraints.

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 specific action ('Send native tokens') and resources (ETH, AVAX, BNB, POL, PLS, SOL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'transfer_token' (which presumably handles non-native tokens) and 'send_transaction' (which may be more generic). It provides a precise verb+resource combination with explicit token examples.

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 usage for sending native tokens, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'transfer_token' or 'send_transaction'. It provides some context about format conversion, but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings or exclusion criteria.

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