transfer_erc20

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this broadcasts a blockchain transaction requiring gas, that it uses the private key to sign, or potential failure modes. The parameter descriptions in the schema cover decimal adjustment and key security, but the tool description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, straightforward sentence with no fluff. Every word is necessary, and it is properly front-loaded.

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?

With a 5-parameter schema and no output schema, the description only covers the core action. Parameter semantics are fully handled by the schema, but the lack of behavioral context (transaction side effects, gas, return value) leaves gaps. Overall adequate but not thorough.

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% with detailed descriptions for amount (decimal adjustment), privateKey (security), and ENS support. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 applies.

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 asset type ('ERC20 tokens'), and the destination ('an address'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like transfer_native_token and batch_transfer_erc20.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus batch_transfer_erc20, transfer_native_token, or approve_token_spending. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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