reputation_get_nonce

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

The key added value is 'Each signed call needs a fresh nonce,' which tells the agent the nonce is single-use and not reusable across calls — context not conveyed by idempotentHint alone. However, 'writes state upstream (not read-only)' merely restates readOnlyHint=false, and 'needs the credentials or wallet signature noted above where applicable' points at nothing in the description, so the guidance is partly boilerplate.

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 'Step 1 of every signed Reputation call' framing is front-loaded and immediately actionable, and the when/when-not sentences are tight. The trailing 'Behavior:' line is partly redundant filler, keeping it from a 5.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (a nonce and the message to sign), the lifecycle constraint (fresh per call), and the prerequisites (wallet signature). That is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly; only the vague 'noted above' credential reference is unresolved.

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% and the single wallet parameter is already documented as a 0x address in the schema. The description adds no format, constraints, or meaning beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action and resource: retrieves a one-time nonce plus the exact message to sign, for Reputation signed calls. It scopes this to the four operations (register, stake, unstake, withdraw), which distinguishes it from siblings like identity_get_nonce and chain_nonce that serve different domains.

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?

Provides an explicit when ('about to register, stake, unstake or withdraw and need the one-time message to sign') and an explicit when-not ('not for read-only lookups, which need no signature'). It does not name the sibling nonce tools (identity_get_nonce, chain_nonce) as alternatives, which keeps it short of a 5.

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