encode_unsigned_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool encodes to 'unsigned transaction bytes,' implying it's a read-only transformation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, performance characteristics, or whether it validates the transaction object. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and includes essential context without redundancy. Every word earns 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and its input sources, but lacks details on output format beyond 'base64 unsigned transaction bytes,' error conditions, or performance implications. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured safety hints, more context would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'transaction' parameter comes from specific sources ('make_*_txn or assign_group_id'), but doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('encode'), the target ('transaction object'), and the output format ('base64 unsigned transaction bytes (msgpack)'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'decode_signed_transaction' or 'sign_transaction' by focusing on encoding rather than decoding or signing.

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 provides explicit context for when to use this tool: 'Accepts output from make_*_txn or assign_group_id.' This gives clear prerequisites. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'encode_obj' for general encoding).

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