transfer_sol

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool transfers SOL and requires a private key, but omits critical details: whether it is destructive (obviously mutation), the network parameter requirement (described only in schema), return values, error handling, and side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 very concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. However, it could be structured to include more details (e.g., listing prerequisites or mentioning the network parameter) without adding length. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 financial transfer tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and a key prerequisite, but lacks details on network usage, destination address format, success/failure behavior, and potential errors. Given the complexity, more completeness would be beneficial.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions are adequate (e.g., destination address, amount with exclusiveMinimum, network with safety note), so the agent can rely on the schema.

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 SOL from the configured wallet to a destination address,' specifying the verb (transfer) and resource (SOL) while distinguishing it from sibling tools like transfer_token (for tokens) and request_airdrop (for airdrops). The requirement of PRIVATE_KEY further clarifies the context.

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 mentions 'Requires PRIVATE_KEY environment variable,' which is a prerequisite but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., transfer_token or request_airdrop). No when-not or alternative usage guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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