Bind the capability key you are calling with to a wallet, step 1: returns the exact SIWE message to sign with that wallet. Bound keys keep their identity across sessions and get 1M units/month.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | The wallet's 0x address (your identity) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context: the call returns a SIWE message, bound keys retain identity across sessions, and they receive 1M units/month. It stops short of explicitly stating that this step does not itself mutate the binding or that signing is required next, but 'step 1' and 'returns the exact SIWE message to sign' convey the essential flow.
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?
Two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the purpose, then gives the key output and the lasting consequences of binding. Every clause adds useful information for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this tool.
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 simple single-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose, the output, and the consequences. A small gap is that it does not explicitly point to bind_key as the next step, but the 'step 1' language and sibling tool list make that inference straightforward.
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% and the address parameter is already documented as 'The wallet's 0x address (your identity)'. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter meaning sufficiently.
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 names a specific action (bind the capability key to a wallet), identifies this as step 1, and states the concrete output: the exact SIWE message to sign. It clearly differentiates from the sibling bind_key tool, which is presumably the later signing/completion step.
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 phrase 'step 1' and the stated output indicate this tool should be used first to obtain a message to sign before completing the binding process. It does not explicitly name bind_key as the next step or state when not to use it, but the step/flow context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.