haiku_prepare_signatures

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavior. It explains that the tool extracts/normalizes EIP-712 payloads and does not execute the transaction, which is crucial. It also indicates it's a read-only preparation step, not destructive. However, it doesn't mention any authorization requirements or side effects, but given the tool's nature (signature preparation), the description is largely transparent.

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 two sentences and efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and parameter guidance. It could be slightly more concise by removing the last sentence about post-signing steps (which might belong in haiku_execute's description), but overall it's well-structured and front-loaded.

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 output schema, the description implicitly covers return values (normalized EIP-712 payloads). It addresses the tool's role in a multi-step process (sign then execute). It lacks detail on the output format or error cases, but for a preparation tool with two optional params, it is reasonably complete.

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 both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the preferred parameter (quoteId) and fallback (quoteResponse), and clarifying that quoteId allows server-side resolution from session cache. This goes beyond what the schema provides, justifying a score above baseline.

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 tool's purpose: preparing EIP-712 signatures for external wallets, distinguishing it from haiku_execute. It specifies the resource ('EIP-712 payloads from a quote') and the action ('extracts and normalizes'), making it distinct from siblings.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (when WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY is not set or wallet MCP handles signing) and when not to (instead of passing directly to haiku_execute). It also provides guidance on which parameter to use (prefer quoteId, fallback to quoteResponse), and what to do after ('pass permit2Signature and/or userSignature to haiku_execute').

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