Return an EIP-5792 transactions[] batch the user signs ONCE to deploy their vault + register spending rules. After signing, the keeper runs the workflow autonomously per the on-chain caps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depositEth | No | 0 | |
| expiryDays | No | ||
| workflowId | Yes | ||
| maxPerDayEth | No | 0.1 | |
| maxPerSwapEth | No | 0.01 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. It mentions that the user signs once and the keeper runs autonomously, but lacks details on side effects, authorization, gas costs, or reversibility of the operation. The description is too sparse for a mutation tool.
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 two sentences and efficiently conveys the core purpose and key behavioral note (keeper autonomy). No unnecessary words.
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 absence of annotations, no output schema, and 5 undocumented parameters, the description falls short. It explains the return type and one-time signing but omits parameter meaning, error handling, and contextual usage scenarios.
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 0%, meaning the schema provides no explanations for any of the 5 parameters. The description does not mention or explain any of the parameters (e.g., depositEth, expiryDays, workflowId), leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond parameter names.
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 'returns an EIP-5792 transactions[] batch' for deploying a vault and registering spending rules, which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like ctrl_create_workflow or ctrl_fire_manual by focusing on the activation/signing 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 description implies that the tool is used after creating a workflow (before keeper autonomy) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like ctrl_create_workflow or ctrl_fire_manual. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: vault activation, workflow creation, manual firing, catalog retrieval, log reading, and vault status. No two tools have overlapping responsibilities.
All tools follow a consistent 'ctrl_verb' pattern (e.g., ctrl_activate, ctrl_create_workflow), making it easy to infer functionality from the name.
6 tools cover the essential operations for a workflow automation server without being excessive or sparse. The scope is well-defined.
The set covers core workflows (create, activate, trigger, monitor) but lacks explicit update/delete for workflows or vaults. This is a minor gap that can be worked around.