verify_domain_separator

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

The description reveals the comparison logic and the consequence of a mismatch (rejected signatures). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so clearly, though it does not specify the output format or whether it is a read-only call.

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 sentences efficiently convey the action, comparison, and significance of the result. 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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and behavioral consequence. It lacks explicit output specification (e.g., boolean return) but is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by stating 'token's EIP-712 DOMAIN_SEPARATOR' and providing a default value. It clarifies the parameter's purpose but could be more specific about valid token formats.

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 specifies the verb 'Recompute and compare' and the resource 'EIP-712 DOMAIN_SEPARATOR' for a token. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like verify_authorization_signature by focusing on domain separator verification for upgrade detection.

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 when to use: to check if a token contract was upgraded by comparing domain separators. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear and sufficient for an AI agent to decide.

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