prepare_transfer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool builds an 'unsigned transaction', indicating no on-chain execution. However, it does not describe what the returned transaction object contains, whether authentication is required, or what happens on error. This is adequate but lacks deeper context.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Build'), resource ('unsigned transaction'), and scope ('transfer native tokens or ERC-20/SIP-010 tokens'). No unnecessary words; every part 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks details on the structure of the returned unsigned transaction, chain-specific behavior, or denomination constraints for 'amount'. While it covers the core purpose, additional context would improve completeness.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by clarifying that the tool supports both native and token transfers and that the output is an unsigned transaction. This context helps interpret the 'tokenAddress' parameter. The missing 'chain' parameter description is partly compensated by the overall purpose.

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's purpose: building an unsigned transaction to transfer native tokens or ERC-20/SIP-010 tokens on supported chains. It uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('unsigned transaction'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'deploy_token' or 'get_balance' by focusing on transfers.

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 implies usage for transfer tasks, and sibling tools are clearly different (deploy, query, pricing). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative transfer methods (if any), nor does it mention prerequisites like wallet connection or balance checks. The guidance is implicit but sufficient given the sibling context.

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