verify_authorization_signature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool operates offline and catches specific failure modes, adding useful context. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., boolean vs. revert) or potential side effects, leaving gaps.

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-load the core function and key details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how parameters map to the verification logic or what the tool returns, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 low (13%), and the description adds no explicit parameter details. While 'token' and 'chain' are hinted, the many parameters like 'from', 'to', 'value', 'validAfter', etc., are not explained. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verifies an EIP-3009 signature offline, checking recovery to the claimed signer for a specific token and chain. It also explains the benefit: catching wrong-domain and cross-chain-replay signatures, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_authorization or verify_domain_separator.

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 usage before sending an on-chain transaction to avoid gas costs, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools. It offers some guidance but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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