Verify Message Signature (BRC-100)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context that no wallet is required (auth-free verification) and specifies the return shape { valid: boolean }, which is especially useful since there is no output schema. No contradiction 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 highly concise and well-structured: a one-line definition, a short wallet-independence note, a single usage sentence, a bulleted Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence carries useful information with no repetition or filler.

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 simple verification tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics (via schema), and return value. It does not mention error cases or encoding specifics, and the relationship to ordnet_sign_message is implicit rather than explicit, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% – each parameter already has a descriptive text. The Args section essentially restates the schema without adding new semantics or edge-case guidance. The only minor addition is reinforcing that the signature comes from ordnet_sign_message, which the schema already states.

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 opens with 'Verify a signature against a message and public key (BRC-100 verifySignature)', which clearly specifies the verb (Verify), the resource (message signature), and the algorithm/standard. This distinguishes it from siblings like ordnet_sign_message, which is its counterpart.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Does NOT require a wallet — anyone can verify' and 'Use this to check that a counterparty's message... really came from the holder of a given public key.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the use case is well-defined.

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