decode_sign_request

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

The description discloses the tool decodes offline (no network call) and produces transaction plus a summary and specific safety warnings (SetHook, AccountDelete, key changes, no-expiry, already-signed). In absence of annotations, this sufficiently conveys behavior without contradictions.

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 focused sentence that conveys the core action, input types, output components, and safety context. No extraneous words; every phrase serves a purpose.

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 output schema exists (not shown but noted), the description explains the return value (transaction + summary + warnings). The two parameters are adequately addressed. The tool's role among 80+ siblings is clear due to its unique focus on sign request decoding with safety warnings.

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 0%, so the description compensates by referencing the two parameters: txjson as 'Xaman/Xumm payload's txjson' and txBlobHex as 'raw tx_blob hex'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's empty property descriptions. While it doesn't detail formats, it gives enough context for correct use.

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 decodes a sign request (specific resource: Xaman/Xumm payload or raw tx_blob) into a transaction and a plain-English summary with safety warnings. It distinguishes from siblings like decode_tx_blob and decode_sethook by emphasizing the sign request context and the human-readable output.

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 advises 'Offline — understand before you sign', indicating when to use it. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the safety focus implies it should be used before signing. This provides clear context, though a note about when to use the simpler decode_tx_blob instead would improve score.

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