wallet_sign_transaction_group

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 mentions 'assigns group ID automatically' and 'enforces spending limits,' which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., signed transactions or a group ID). For a tool involving signing and potential financial implications, 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 that front-loads the core action and includes key behavioral notes. Every part earns its place, with no redundant or vague language. It could be slightly improved by structuring into multiple sentences for clarity, but it's appropriately sized and direct.

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 signing transactions (a potentially destructive operation with financial risks), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses essential context such as safety warnings, required wallet state, error conditions, or output format. While it mentions spending limits, it doesn't cover other critical aspects like authentication needs or what happens on failure.

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 no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain transaction object structure, network implications, or pagination context). Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 group of transactions') and the resource ('with the active wallet account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'sign_transaction' by specifying 'group of transactions' and mentions automatic group ID assignment, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools like 'wallet_sign_data' or 'send_raw_transaction'.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'active wallet account' and 'enforces spending limits,' suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'sign_transaction' for single transactions or 'send_raw_transaction' for sending, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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