ugf_evm_wait_sponsorship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions waiting but lacks details on polling behavior, timeout, error handling, or what happens if sponsorship is never ready. The parameters 'max_attempts' and 'interval_ms' imply polling, but the description does not clarify their role or behavior beyond the schema.

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 sentences, no extraneous text. The key information is front-loaded and every sentence is essential.

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?

The tool is a polling/wait with no output schema. The description lacks details on return values, error conditions, and how the agent should proceed after the wait. For a blocking operation, more behavioral documentation is needed.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. 'digest', 'max_attempts', and 'interval_ms' are left completely unexplained, forcing the agent to infer meaning from names alone.

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 action: waiting for UGF sponsorship readiness for a destination EVM transaction, then the agent sends the tx. It uses specific verbs ('wait', 'sends') and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ugf_evm_confirm_user_tx' and chain-specific wait tools.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (before sending an EVM transaction) and hints at the post-usage step (agent sends tx). However, it doesn't explicitly exclude cases or name alternative tools, though the sibling set includes other chain-specific waits, making the context clear.

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