Finalize Transaction With Local Signer

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it previews, signs with active local profile, optionally submits via relay, and clarifies relay security ('never receives keypair material'). No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false).

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?

A single paragraph of 5 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage and warnings. Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite 12 parameters and complex workflow, the description covers input scenarios, signing process, submission options, security guarantees, and required confirm flag. Output schema exists (not shown) but is not needed for completeness here. Sufficient for correct agent invocation.

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% and parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by highlighting key usage constraints (confirm: true, submit relay defaults) without repeating schema details. While not exhaustive, it integrates parameter context into the workflow.

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 as a local non-custodial transaction finalizer for hosted SAP MCP builders, specifying inputs (transactionBase64, transaction, unsigned Solana transaction) and actions (preview, sign, optionally submit). It distinguishes from siblings like sap_sign_transaction and sap_submit_signed_transaction by emphasizing local signing and relay submission.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when a hosted tool returns transactionBase64, transaction, or unsigned Solana transaction. Provides clear when-not-to-use guidance: 'Never create temporary signing scripts, read keypair JSON, or call hosted sap_sign_transaction for user-owned signatures.' This offers effective alternative disambiguation.

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