transfer_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it 'Signs and broadcasts the transaction' (indicating a write operation with network interaction) and mentions the human-readable amount format. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on failure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key usage details and a helper reference. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complex write operation (token transfer) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the action, key behavioral aspects (signing/broadcasting), and parameter hints, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or security prerequisites, which are important for such a tool.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the human-readable amount format and hinting at token address formats, but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what's in 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Send ERC-20 tokens (EVM) or SPL tokens (Solana) to an address'), identifies the resource (tokens), and distinguishes from siblings like 'transfer' (which might be generic) or 'send_transaction' (which might be for native currency) by specifying token types and formats.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (sending tokens, not native currency) and references 'get_chains' as a helper for finding addresses, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives like 'send_transaction' for ETH transfers.

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