build_token_approve

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

The description discloses that the calldata is unsigned and explains the 'unlimited' parameter effect. However, with no annotations, it misses other behavioral aspects like side effects (none, as it's unsigned), authorization needs, or return type. The information is minimal but not contradictory.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main action. It is efficient, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters) without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value (unsigned calldata). It fails to do so. Also, only two of four parameters are mentioned in the description, leaving significant gaps for an agent. The tool's complexity is moderate, so additional context is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the 'unlimited' parameter. However, it does not describe the 'token' or 'spender' parameters (though they are standard for ERC-20). The 'amount' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its default and behavior unclear.

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 verb 'Build' and the resource 'UNSIGNED calldata for an ERC-20 approve', including a specific option for unlimited allowance. This is specific and actionable, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from similar siblings like 'build_token_transfer', but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'build_permit' or direct transfer functions). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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