transfer_token

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only discloses the need for a private key but omits other behavioral traits such as side effects (deduction from sender, addition to destination), error conditions (insufficient balance, invalid address), or transaction confirmation. Limited transparency.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus a required note. No filler words, front-loaded with action. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It lacks information about return values, network-specific behavior, token decimal handling, and error scenarios. The schema covers parameter descriptions but the description fails to provide operational context.

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% with all four parameters described adequately in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify units (UI amount), network implications, or address format. Baseline score for high coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool transfers SPL tokens from the configured wallet to a destination, using the verb 'transfer' and specifying the resource (SPL tokens) and direction (configured wallet to destination). This distinguishes it from siblings like transfer_sol (SOL) and other token operations.

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?

Mentions the prerequisite 'Requires PRIVATE_KEY', which is helpful, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., transfer_sol, burn_tokens) or when not to use it. No explicit usage context or exclusion criteria.

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