ugf_vault_build_tx

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It indicates the tool returns an unsigned transaction (no submission), but fails to explicitly state non-destructive behavior. The description could be more transparent about state changes or permissions requirements.

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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return format and workflow steps. No redundant information.

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?

While no output schema exists, the description lists all return fields. Missing explanation of the quote parameter origin (though sibling tools like ugf_quote exist). Overall, it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 50% (only payer_address has a description). The description does not explain the quote object's fields (digest, payment_to, etc.) or how to obtain it. It adds marginal value by listing return fields, but doesn't fully compensate for the gap in parameter descriptions.

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 builds an unsigned EIP-1559 vault payment transaction for local signing and broadcast. It specifies the return fields (to, data, value, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ugf_vault_submit_signed by noting the workflow.

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 explicit workflow guidance: 'Agent signs + broadcasts, then calls ugf_vault_submit_signed.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (before signing) and what step follows. It does not mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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