generate_session_keypair

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully well: it discloses the algorithm (secp256k1), the custody model (managed-custody), how the keypair is used (trade signing), and the exact return field names. It omits whether keypairs are session-scoped/expiring, whether regeneration invalidates prior signatures, and any auth requirements for the managed flow.

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 tight sentences, purpose first, return values second. No filler and nothing that fails to earn 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 zero-param tool the description covers purpose and outputs, but with no annotations and no output schema the agent still lacks lifecycle details (expiry, reuse across sessions, relation to managed_sign_in/build_sign_in_payload, whether the private key must be stored or used immediately) that this family of tools likely requires.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes further by naming the two return fields (sessionPrivateKey, sessionKey as compressed public key), which is useful since no output schema exists to declare them.

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?

Specific verb (Generate) plus resource (secp256k1 session keypair) with an explicit purpose clause ('for managed-custody trade signing'). This distinguishes it from the sibling generate_evm_wallet, which serves a different custody context.

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 phrase 'for managed-custody trade signing' implies when it is needed (prior to managed_* trade operations), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisite chain, and no mention of the alternative generate_evm_wallet or session lifetime.

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