Wallet login challenge

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

With only the openWorldHint annotation, the description adds significant behavioral detail: it's a GET request, returns flow_id and message to sign. This goes beyond the annotation and gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior. It doesn't mention side effects, but the openWorldHint suggests low risk.

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?

One concise sentence front-loads the action and includes the endpoint and return values. No wasted words; every phrase adds value.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, the HTTP method, and the return values (flow_id and message). There's no output schema, but the textual return description suffices for this simple initiation tool. It doesn't explicitly mention the next step (auth_wallet_complete), but the sibling list and context signals hint at it.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described (wallet_address and chain with enum). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Start wallet-signature login' with the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like auth_wallet_complete by indicating this is the initiation step, not the completion step.

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 clearly implies use when initiating a wallet login. It mentions 'wallet-signature login' which contrasts with email login alternatives, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions. Clear context without exclusions.

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