kaspa_sign

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses local signing, mainnet-only constraint, expected input structure, output format, and a critical security warning about private key exposure. This is thorough and directly actionable for an agent.

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 dense but well-organized, covering purpose, input, output, and security in four sentences. Every sentence adds value, and the security note is clearly separated.

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?

The description explains the workflow and output, but without an output schema or explicit parameter names, an agent still lacks full invocation details. It references the prepare-transaction API but does not specify how to map private keys to inputs or inject them as parameters.

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 is empty, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful semantics by stating private keys are passed as parameters, one per input, and never from env. However, it does not name the exact parameters, leaving a gap in how to construct the call.

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 signs a Kaspa transaction locally, specifying the chain (UTXO/blockDAG, schnorr, mainnet-only) and the exact action (sign-from-details). It is distinct from sibling signing tools by naming Kaspa and its specific workflow.

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 explains when to use the tool: with a prepared transaction object from the Kaspa prepare-transaction API and by passing private keys as parameters. It does not explicitly exclude other signing tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for Kaspa transactions.

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