verify_evm_signature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful traits: it is a cryptographic verification operation, requires no node infrastructure, and costs 0.01 USDC. It does not clarify expected return values, error behavior on invalid signatures, or the role of paymentSignature, so some behavioral gaps remain.

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 two concise sentences with no filler: the core verification capability is front-loaded, and the cost note follows as a compact parenthetical. Every phrase adds 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?

For a paid cryptographic verification tool with no output schema, the agent needs to know the expected payload structure and the result shape, but neither is provided. The generic 'Input parameters or JSON string payload' schema description leaves too much unspecified, and the tool's fee makes missing payment behavior details more consequential.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds the payment context but does not explain how to construct the payload or format the paymentSignature beyond what the schema's generic descriptions already state.

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 names a specific operation and resource: cryptographically verifying EIP-712 typed data and personal_sign ECDSA signatures on Base L2. This is specific enough to distinguish it from generic signature verifiers and related siblings like verify_signature_eip191. The 'without running expensive nodes' phrase adds clear operational context.

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 lightweight off-chain signature verification on Base L2, and mentions a 0.01 USDC fee. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions such as EIP-1271 contract signatures or other chains.

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