transfer_trx

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

Annotations declare non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it checks balance sufficiency (including gas) before sending and provides typical cost (~0 energy + ~270 bandwidth). This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand side effects.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, safety check, and cost estimate. Perfectly concise.

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 simple transfer tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety check, and cost. It lacks detail on error handling (e.g., insufficient balance response) or return value format, but the annotations and schema fill most gaps. Slightly incomplete for a mutation 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning for parameters beyond the schema's patterns and descriptions. No extra guidance on parameter values or formats.

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 'Transfer TRX to another TRON address', specifying the verb (transfer), resource (TRX), and action scope. The sibling tool 'transfer_trc20' handles TRC20 tokens, so this description implicitly distinguishes by focusing on 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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions balance checking and cost but does not state when to use transfer_trc20 or other transfer methods, nor does it describe exclusions or prerequisites.

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