build_transfer_authorization_calldata

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states the operation ('assemble') without any behavioral details such as input validation, error conditions, or side effects. The tool is likely pure but this is not disclosed.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with key information. However, it is too brief and lacks necessary context about the return value or process, making it less useful.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not mention what the calldata looks like, any encoding details, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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?

Only 2 of 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema (value, signature), and the tool description adds no parameter information. With schema description coverage at 25%, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent to infer parameter meanings from names alone.

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 it assembles transferWithAuthorization CALLDATA from a signed authorization, specifying the output and intended recipient (relayer). It distinguishes from sibling 'build_transfer_authorization' by focusing on calldata, but could be more explicit about the exact output format.

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 tool versus alternatives like 'build_transfer_authorization' or 'build_transaction'. No prerequisites or conditions for use are mentioned.

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