wallet_sign_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully mentions 'Enforces per-transaction and daily spending limits' which reveals important constraints. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (signed transaction object? success flag?), error conditions, or authentication requirements beyond the implied wallet context.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds important behavioral context. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key constraints.

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 transaction signing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and mentions spending limits, but lacks crucial information about return values, error handling, and how the 'active wallet account' is determined. The 100% schema coverage helps, but behavioral transparency gaps remain.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the 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 action ('Sign a single transaction') and resource ('with the active wallet account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sign_transaction' or 'wallet_sign_transaction_group' beyond the 'single transaction' qualifier.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sign_transaction' or 'wallet_sign_transaction_group'. It mentions 'active wallet account' but doesn't explain how to set or switch the active account, nor does it mention prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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