send_transfer

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: it confirms the tool only builds unsigned transactions and that signing must occur externally. This aligns with openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, adding valuable detail about security and process.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and then add the critical security note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 explains the return value (unsigned transaction data and hash) and the need for external signing, which is sufficient for a tool with moderate complexity. No output schema is present, but the description covers the essential output. Minor gap: no error handling or edge cases are mentioned, but not critical for this use case.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description provides a high-level purpose but does not add additional meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool builds an unsigned KLV or KDA token transfer transaction on the Klever blockchain, specifying the output and the need for external signing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like freeze_klv or invoke_sc.

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 explicitly states when to use it (building an unsigned transaction for client-side signing) and that the server never handles private keys. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

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