Message to sign for logo and metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 10-minute validity and the need to request fresh messages per step, especially for locking, but it omits auth requirements, whether the message is single-use, and any side-effect or error behavior.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The core return value is front-loaded, followed by validity and freshness constraints, so every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main purpose and timing constraints. However, it leaves the token parameter underspecified and does not address authentication or whether the returned message must be used immediately, making it only minimally 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?

The single token parameter has 0% schema description coverage; the schema only supplies a regex pattern. The description mentions the token's creator wallet but does not explain what the token parameter expects, whether it is a token address, or any chain-specific semantics, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the exact message the creator wallet must sign for logo upload, metadata save, or metadata lock. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic signing tools, but it does not explicitly name siblings like upload_logo or lock_metadata to reinforce differentiation.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use it before uploading a logo, saving metadata, or locking metadata. It also gives important operational guidance—valid for 10 minutes, request a fresh one per separate step, always fresh for locking—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as prepare_badge_message.

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