transfer_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Signs and broadcasts the transaction' is a genuinely useful disclosure beyond the schema, but it omits irreversibility, gas/fee source, confirmation behavior, and required permissions for a mutation tool that moves funds.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted filler. The trailing 'Use get_chains to find stablecoin addresses' is slightly tangential but still earns its place as a cross-tool pointer.

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 or annotations exist, so the description must fully inform the agent. It covers the signing/broadcast behavior and amount format but is silent on gas handling, failure modes, and whether a native-token or approval prerequisite applies to a fund-moving tool with six parameters.

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 six parameters including the human-readable amount format and decimals resolution rule. The description only restates the amount convention, adding no parameter meaning beyond the structured data, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (ERC-20 tokens on EVM / SPL tokens on Solana) with the address target, which is clear. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'transfer' or 'send_transaction', leaving the agent to infer which tool handles which asset type.

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?

Provides an implied usage hint ('Use get_chains to find stablecoin addresses') and the human-readable amount convention, but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling transfer/send/sign tools. The distinction between this and 'transfer' or 'send_transaction' is left entirely to inference.

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