magicblock login

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), not destructive (destructiveHint=false), and may interact with external systems (openWorldHint=true). The description adds meaningful context: it returns a bearer token and is part of an authentication flow. No contradictions with annotations.

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, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core action and flow step; the second adds token usage context. 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?

Given the tool has an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description adequately explains its role in the auth flow and token usage. It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, as it only mentions 'signed challenge' and 'bearer token' without detailing parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 exchanges a signed challenge for a bearer token, identifies it as step 2 of the PER auth flow, and notes its use for private-balance and private transfers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like magicblock_challenge (step 1) and magicblock_privateBalance (which uses the token).

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 positions this tool as step 2 of an auth flow, implying it should be used after obtaining a challenge via magicblock_challenge. It also states the token's purpose for private-balance and private transfers, giving context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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