transfer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the important behavior that it 'signs and broadcasts' (i.e. a real, irreversible on-chain write that moves funds) and auto-converts to wei/lamports. It omits gas/fee handling, confirmation semantics, failure modes, and wallet state requirements (e.g. paused wallet).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and asset class, followed by the amount convention and the transaction lifecycle. No filler or repetition.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does, the amount convention, and that it broadcasts. It lacks fee/confirmation behavior and any hint of what is returned (e.g. tx hash), which leaves meaningful gaps for a destructive operation.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents the address format, amount format, chain IDs, and wallet_id. The description adds only the conversion behavior ('converted to wei/lamports automatically'), which is a marginal gain over the schema.

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 ('Send') and resource ('native tokens'), and its enumeration of native assets (ETH, AVAX, BNB, POL, PLS, SOL) implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling transfer_token. It stops short of naming the alternative outright, so an agent must infer the ERC-20 boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'native tokens' scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to siblings like transfer_token or send_transaction. The amount-format guidance is helpful but is invocation detail rather than a usage rule.

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