Sign Transaction

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

Adds context about the configured SAP MCP signer and the non-custodial security model beyond annotations. Does not mention output format or side effects, but annotations already cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint accurately.

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?

Two concise sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core action and prerequisite, the second adds critical security guidance. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 signing tool with annotations and output schema present, the description covers the action, prerequisite, and security context. Could benefit from mentioning the output is a signed transaction ready for submission, but output schema likely provides that.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds only that the transaction is 'serialized Solana transaction', which is implied by the schema. No additional detail on encoding differences or transaction format.

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 verb 'Sign' and the resource 'serialized Solana transaction', and distinguishes it from related tools like sap_preview_transaction and unsafe signing methods. It specifies it's the supported non-custodial path.

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 says 'after sap_preview_transaction' (when to use) and warns not to read keypair JSON or sign raw bytes (when not to use), providing clear guidance and alternatives.

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