akka_get_approve_tx

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable beyond that: it returns unsigned transaction data to be signed and sent, and specifies the output fields (to, data, value). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose, second describes output, third provides usage context. Every sentence adds essential information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (to, data, value). It covers when to use, parameter nuances, and the follow-up action (sign and send). Complete for a tool of this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds incremental value by clarifying that omitting the amount grants unlimited approval, reinforcing the schema's note. It also connects tokenAddress to ERC-20 context.

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 it generates an ERC-20 approve transaction for the AKKA Router, distinguishing it from sibling tools like akka_check_allowance (which checks allowance) and akka_get_swap (which performs swap). It specifies the resource (approve transaction) and the verb (generate), with additional details about output format.

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 explicitly states when to use ('Required before swapping ERC-20 tokens') and when not ('not needed for native tokens'). It also explains optional behavior for amount omission. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools (e.g., akka_check_allowance) for cases where only checking allowance is needed.

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