sign_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely restates the operation without mentioning the signature output format, whether it is read-only, or any side effects like user approval requirements. For a wallet action, this is a significant gap.

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 one short, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is optimally concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Although the tool has only one parameter, the lack of an output schema means the description should at least hint at the return value (e.g., a signature string). It also does not clarify whether signing is a safe, read-only operation or requires user interaction. With no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single 'message' parameter as 'Message to sign,' achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Sign a message with the wallet.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like transfer_vet or vechainstats_get_block_info. However, it lacks details on the type or scope of signing, preventing a perfect score.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, but signing is a unique operation among siblings, so usage is implicitly clear. The description does not mention prerequisites such as wallet connection or consent, nor does it note any situations where this tool should not be used.

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