random_nonce

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the nonce is randomly generated, which gives basic transparency. However, it does not mention whether the generation is cryptographically secure, if it has side effects, or what the output format is (e.g., hex-encoded). This is adequate for a simple stateless tool but leaves some ambiguity.

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 consists of two sentences, each adding distinct value: the first states the core action and output, the second provides context about EIP-3009 nonces. No wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers what, why, and the relevant standard. However, it could specify the return format (e.g., hex string) or that the output is suitable as a nonce parameter. For a simple generation tool, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 has no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the nonce size (32-byte) and its purpose (EIP-3009). For a zero-parameter tool, baseline is 4, and the description meets this standard.

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 explicitly states the tool generates a random 32-byte nonce for EIP-3009 authorization, which clearly defines its purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_nonce' (which likely fetches sequential nonces). The mention of EIP-3009 and 'random, not sequential' differentiates it effectively.

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 indicates when to use this tool: for EIP-3009 authorization where nonces are random. It implies when not to use (non-EIP-3009 contexts), but does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions. Given the context of sibling tools, the guidance is clear but could be more explicit.

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