sign_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool signs a transaction but doesn't mention critical details like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions or authentication are needed, potential side effects (e.g., key exposure risks), rate limits, or the expected output format. For a security-sensitive signing tool, this is a significant gap.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a transaction-signing tool (security implications, cryptographic operations) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent under-informed about how to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the structure of the 'transaction' object or clarify the role of 'itemsPerPage' in a signing context). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 action ('sign') and target ('a transaction with a secret key'), providing a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'wallet_sign_transaction' or 'sign_bytes', which appear to offer similar signing functionality in different contexts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wallet_sign_transaction' or 'sign_bytes'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or any explicit when/when-not instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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