Get 8DX Permit Data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that the tool 'only returns data to sign' and 'does not sign anything', which is a key behavioral trait and clarifies the tool is non-mutating in terms of on-chain actions. While it doesn't detail side effects, rate limits, or authentication, the core safety-relevant behavior is clearly disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. The second sentence adds a critical clarification without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimally concise.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a clear purpose and a key behavioral constraint. It explains that the tool returns data for signing, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect and how to use the result in a broader flow. However, it does not describe the output structure or indicate any errors/pagination, which would be useful in the absence of an output schema. Still, it is adequately complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already provides detailed meaning. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level information. Its reference to 'token approval flow' provides general context but does not clarify any specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'Gets permit typed data for a token approval flow.' It uses a specific verb ('gets'), a distinct resource ('permit typed data'), and provides context (token approval flow). It also clarifies it 'does not sign anything', distinguishing it from signing tools. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 usage context by tying the tool to a 'token approval flow' and explicitly stating it 'only returns data to sign; it does not sign anything.' This tells the agent this is a pre-signing step and implies that signing tools should be used if actual signing is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it beyond the non-signing exclusion.

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