build_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the server does not hold keys or broadcast, which is key. However, it omits other behavioral traits like output format, idempotency, or error handling, so transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and adds a critical constraint, earning its space.

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 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks details on output format (e.g., hex-encoded transaction) and side effects, leaving the agent to infer from the schema and tool name.

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 only 25% (only 'value' described). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for low coverage. Standard transaction parameters are named but not elaborated.

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 builds an unsigned transaction for external signing, using specific verbs ('build') and resource ('unsigned transaction'). It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the server's limitations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use when needing an unsigned transaction for offline signing but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like build_token_transfer or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but lacks explicit direction.

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