Submit Signed Transaction

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description isn't required to repeat that. It adds context about policy, retries, and audit staying inside SAP MCP, which informs the agent of additional behavioral guarantees. No contradictions.

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 that front-load the core purpose and usage guidance without unnecessary words.

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 high schema coverage, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and ties into the broader workflow (with sap_sign_transaction).

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds value by linking the signedTransaction parameter to the sign tool, but beyond that, the schema carries the burden.

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 submits a signed Solana transaction, specifically one produced by sap_sign_transaction, via the configured RPC endpoint. It distinguishes itself from custom sendRawTransaction scripts.

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 tells when to use this tool: 'Use this instead of custom sendRawTransaction scripts' and provides the reasons (policy, retries, audit). This also implies alternatives.

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