Contribute to a project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool returns an unsigned, base64-encoded transaction and does not touch the private key or broadcast. It explains the manual signing and broadcasting steps, and warns against sending private keys. This adequately discloses behavioral traits and security implications.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and followed by usage context, output explanation, and action steps. Each sentence adds value without being overly verbose. Could be slightly more concise but is well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality, return value structure (unsignedTx), and follow-up steps including polling. It omits error handling or edge cases but is adequate for agent usage.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (token enum, amount in base units, projectId pattern). The description adds context about transferring from caller's wallet into escrow PDA but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 tool's purpose: 'Contribute (donate) SOL or USDC to an existing AgentFund project.' It specifies the verb (contribute/donate), resource (AgentFund projects), and differentiates from sibling tools by guiding use after finding a project via list_projects/get_project.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: 'Use this after finding a project via list_projects/get_project.' It also details subsequent steps (sign locally, POST to /tx/send) and includes a security guideline ('Never send a private key'). However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives like build_transaction.

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