transfer_trc20

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and safety (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it checks balance sufficiency before sending and explains symbol resolution, providing valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for readability.

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?

The description covers token identification, amount units, and balance check, but does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash or status). Since there is no output schema, this information would be valuable for completeness.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage). Description enhances by explaining token parameter is preferred over tokenAddress, giving examples of symbols and human-readable amount format, making parameter usage clearer.

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 action ('transfer'), the resource ('TRC20 tokens'), and the recipient ('TRON address'). It also explains token identification via symbol or contract address, distinguishing it from other transfer tools like transfer_trx.

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 context on how to use the parameters (prefer token over tokenAddress) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., for TRX transfers use transfer_trx). However, the purpose is clear from the name and description.

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