Register agent

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the return is an unsigned transaction, does not touch private keys, and never broadcasts. It also warns against sending private keys. Minor gap: does not mention potential costs like SOL for account rent.

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 thorough and well-structured but slightly long. Every sentence contributes essential information, justifying the length. Could be marginally more concise.

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 complexity of crypto transactions and IPFS pinning, the description covers prerequisites, parameter options, return format, signing steps, broadcasting, polling, and security. No output schema exists, but the description explains the unsignedTx output adequately.

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% with basic descriptions, but the tool description adds significant value by explaining the mutual exclusivity between metadataUri and name/description/avatar, and the IPFS pinning behavior.

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 ('Register the calling wallet as an AgentFund agent') and the on-chain result ('creates an on-chain AgentAccount PDA'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting this must be done once before create_project, contribute, and vote.

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?

Explicitly when to use ('do this once before create_project...'), parameter alternatives ('Provide either a pre-pinned metadataUri, or raw name/description/avatar'), and step-by-step instructions for completing the action after the API call.

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