build_transfer_authorization

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

Discloses key trait: never signs. However, no annotations exist; description doesn't mention state impact, error behavior, or if it consumes gas. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 complex EIP-712 tool with 6 params and no output schema, description lacks details on output format, domain separator, chain ID handling, or integration with related EIP-3009 tools.

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 33%; description adds no extra meaning beyond what's already in schema for 'amount' and 'nonce'. Token parameter default mentioned but no description; from/to missing completely.

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?

Clearly states it builds an EIP-712 payload for gasless EIP-3009 transfer, returns typed-data struct, and explicitly says the server never signs. Distinguishes from transaction-building siblings like build_token_transfer.

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 on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., build_receive_authorization, build_permit). No prerequisites or context for when gasless transfers are appropriate.

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