psbt_sign

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavior context — signing uses the active wallet and covers both P2WPKH (buyer) and taproot keys — but it omits whether the wallet must be unlocked, whether signing is local only (i.e. no broadcast), and what happens to inputs that cannot be signed.

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 first two sentences are tight and front-loaded. The trailing "Tip: call `earning_opportunities`..." is an unrelated cross-sell that does not help an agent invoke this signing tool and dilutes focus.

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 stateful signing tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description should say what comes back (a signed PSBT ready for psbt_broadcast) and any prerequisites such as wallet unlock. Supported key types are covered, but the end-to-end expectation is left implicit.

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%: psbtBase64, signInputs ("signs all signable inputs if omitted"), and finalizeSignedInputs are all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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 verb+resource ("Sign one or more PSBT inputs") plus the signing context ("with the active wallet") and key types supported. An agent can distinguish it from psbt_broadcast or psbt_decode, but neither sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"With the active wallet" implies the wallet must be the selected/active one, but the description never says when to use this versus psbt_broadcast, psbt_decode, or psbt_create_ordinal_buy, nor what the next step in the workflow is. Usage is inferable from the name only.

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