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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the endpoint performs a dry price-check (returns estGas, priceUsd, envelope) and that broadcasting requires a separate call with an X-PAYMENT header. It mentions that Robyn pays gas, so no native token is needed. It does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or authentication details beyond the header, which is a gap.

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 consists of two well-structured sentences. The first sentence clearly states the primary purpose, and the second sentence explains the dual-mode operation. No extraneous information. It is front-loaded with key details about who pays gas and the two call paths.

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 (EIP-7702, nested authorization, two modes) and no output schema, the description covers the essential flow but lacks details on error handling, prerequisites (signed authorization), and the exact structure of the return values (estGas, priceUsd, envelope). It provides a good overview but falls short of being fully actionable without additional 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 50%, meaning half of the parameters lack schema descriptions. The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics; it only mentions the overall function. For example, the 'authorization' object and 'chainId' are not explained beyond the schema. The description adds marginal value to parameter understanding.

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: 'Price or request an EIP-7702 sponsored transaction'. It specifies the resource (EIP-7702 transaction) and the action (sponsor, relayer pays gas). It distinguishes between a dry price-check and actual broadcast, and the context signals show siblings like robyn_7702_check and robyn_7702_delegate, which are clearly different.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: for sponsored transactions where the relayer pays gas. It explains the two modes (dry price-check vs. broadcast with X-PAYMENT header). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to sibling tools, though the unique function is evident.

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