Verify personal_sign

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond naming the scheme. It does not say what happens on an invalid signature (error vs empty result), whether the message must be plain text or hex-encoded, or what the recovered value looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource standard is stated before any detail. Nothing redundant is present.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the definition is near-minimal. 'Recover the signer' implies a returned address, but with no output schema an agent would benefit from knowing the failure mode and the exact encoding expectations, which are absent.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only alludes to the two inputs implicitly; it never specifies the signature encoding (hex with 0x prefix, r/s/v vs packed) or whether 'message' is raw UTF-8 or hex-encoded bytes before hashing per EIP-191.

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?

States a precise verb ('Recover the signer') and a specific resource ('EIP-191 personal_sign message'). The named standard cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like eip712_hash, safe_tx_hash, and decode_calldata without needing to open any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is for verifying/recovering a signer when it holds a personal_sign message plus signature. There is no explicit when-to-use note, no exclusion, and no pointer to alternatives such as eip712_hash for EIP-712 typed data.

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