sign_message

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context ('with the wallet') but does not disclose important traits such as whether the signing is a standard personal_sign, requires user confirmation, or has security implications. The annotation openWorldHint is vague and does not convey the operational safety profile. No contradiction exists, but the description fails to enrich beyond the annotation.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Sign', and contains no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and well-structured, earning every word.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description still lacks essential context: it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a signature string) or mention any restrictions or chain-specific behavior. With no output schema, the description should explain the return value, which it does not. It also does not address usage context relative to siblings.

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 50%: chainId has a detailed description, but message has none. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics, leaving the message parameter underspecified. Since coverage is not high enough to rely on the schema alone, the description should compensate but does not.

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 ('Sign') and the resource ('a message'), and specifies the context ('with the wallet'). It is a specific verb+resource pairing, but it does not distinguish from sibling signing tools like evm_sign_message or sign_typed_data_evm, which might also sign messages. Thus it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., active wallet) or exclusions (e.g., use sign_typed_data_evm for typed data). Without such context, the agent is left to infer usage.

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