label-transfers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool annotates rows but does not disclose whether it mutates inputs or returns new objects, how unmatched rows are handled, or what permissions or side effects apply.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for the conciseness dimension, even though other dimensions show the definition is under-specified.

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 tool with five parameters, three required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits the required asset_class, the known_only option, and any explanation of what the returned labeled rows look like.

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 only 20%, so the description needs to compensate, but it only hints at watchlist and min_usd. It says nothing about the required asset_class enum, the shape of transfers, or the known_only flag.

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 states a specific verb and resource: annotate transfer rows with watchlist labels, with an optional USD filter. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from any sibling tool such as smart-money or whale-alerts.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The only conditional language, 'optionally filtered by USD,' describes a parameter rather than a usage condition.

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