wallet_sign_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('Returns hex signature') but doesn't cover important aspects like required wallet state, authentication needs, error conditions, or side effects. For a signing operation with security implications, this is insufficient.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential technical details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 security-critical signing operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'active wallet account' means, how wallet state affects operation, error conditions, or the security implications of signing arbitrary data. The presence of seemingly unrelated parameters ('itemsPerPage') further complicates understanding.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it reinforces the 'data' parameter's hex encoding and Ed25519 context, but doesn't provide additional semantic context for the 'network' or 'itemsPerPage' parameters that appear unrelated to the core signing operation.

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 ('Sign arbitrary data'), resource ('with the active wallet account'), and technical details ('using raw Ed25519, no Algorand SDK prefix'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sign_bytes' and 'sign_transaction' by specifying wallet-based signing with a particular cryptographic approach.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sign_bytes' or 'sign_transaction'. The description mentions the technical approach but doesn't provide context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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