cross_chain_wormhole_vaa_parser

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior: it validates guardian signatures, emitter chain IDs, and payloads, and it exposes a 0.040 USDC Base L2 cost. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns on success/failure, or how payment is enforced.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and validation scope, followed by a short parenthetical with a relevant payment detail. Every word contributes useful information; there is no redundant 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 paid crypto-parsing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out the return contract, the exact payload format, and the payment flow. It is sufficient for tool selection but not fully sufficient for correct invocation without additional reasoning.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds domain context by identifying the payload as a Wormhole VAA and linking the cost to the Base L2 USDC payment, but it does not specify the expected payload encoding (hex, base64, JSON) or how to provide the payment signature.

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 states a specific verb ('parses and audits') and a specific resource ('Wormhole Verified Action Approvals'), then enumerates the exact validation targets: guardian committee quorum signatures, emitter chain IDs, and payloads. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling verification tools like verify_evm_signature or verify_merkle_airdrop_leaf.

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 implies the tool is for parsing and validating Wormhole VAAs, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternate tool routing are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the name and function.

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