nostr_sign_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the default derivation path, that the NIP-01 event ID is computed via SHA-256 of the canonical serialization, the return value (complete signed event), and the unlocked-wallet prerequisite. It omits whether anything is persisted, whether signing is repeatable for the same input, and any key-safety caveats.

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 core is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work' is unrelated promotional content that dilutes an otherwise tight definition and could misroute an agent.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by saying it returns the complete signed event ready to publish. Combined with the stated derivation defaults and wallet prerequisite, an agent has enough to call it correctly; the exact returned field set is left to NIP-01 convention.

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 every parameter including kind, tags, content, keySource and created_at is already documented in the schema. The description restates the keySource default and derivation path rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 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 verb and resource ('Sign a Nostr event (NIP-01) using BIP-340 Schnorr') and makes clear it only signs and returns an event 'ready to publish', implicitly distinguishing it from a publishing sibling like nostr_post. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the sign-vs-publish boundary must be inferred.

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?

Gives concrete selection guidance for keySource ('nostr' default, 'taproot' BIP-86, 'segwit' P2WPKH x-only) and states the prerequisite 'Requires an unlocked wallet'. It offers no explicit when-not or routing against the other signing siblings (schnorr_sign_digest, sip018_sign, nostr_post).

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