request_execution_delegation

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, consistent with producing a payload rather than mutating state. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: a tier gate (scout_plus), the backend API endpoint, and that the output is one user-signed scoped delegation. It could still disclose payload presentation or scope-conflict behavior.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded after the capability bracket. The bracketed tier/API metadata earns its place as gating info, though it crowds the opening.

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 19-parameter tool with a large nested policy and no output schema, the description omits the payload's shape, how it's surfaced for signing, and the futures-policy path (executionDomain). Annotations cover the safety profile, but return-value context is thin.

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 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters (validAfter in Unix seconds, maxRiskPerTrade caveat, deprecated cent aliases). The description adds no parameter-level detail and does not clarify the spot-vs-futures executionDomain split that drives the large nested policy object.

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?

States a specific verb ("Request") and resource ("exact EIP-712 / ERC-8196 bounded delegation payload") plus the downstream intent (user wallet approval). It's clear what is produced, though it never names a sibling tool (register_execution_delegation, verify_delegation, request_approval_payload) to differentiate itself.

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?

No when-to-use guidance versus alternatives. The description implies the user must sign, but doesn't say when to call this instead of request_approval_payload, register_execution_delegation, or grant_session_key, nor what prerequisites (e.g. an existing session) apply.

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