Local Sign And Send 8DX Transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It states the mutating action ('signs and broadcasts') and the confirmation requirement, which adds safety context. However, it does not mention the irreversible nature of broadcasting, potential failure modes, or what happens if the signer is not enabled, leaving gaps 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It includes critical prerequisites without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash) but does not. It also omits details like network-specific behavior or gas handling. However, it does cover the essential action and prerequisites, making it minimally sufficient but not fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema's existing coverage, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Signs and broadcasts') and the specific resource ('a prepared transaction with the opt-in local signer'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'eightdx_wallet_send_transaction' by explicitly mentioning the local signer, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear prerequisites: EIGHTDX_ENABLE_LOCAL_SIGNER=true and explicit user confirmation. This defines when the tool is applicable, though it does not explicitly name the alternative (wallet-based sending) or state when not to use it. The context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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