sip018_hash

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is pure computation requiring no unlocked wallet, and names the returned hashes – valuable behavioral context. It doesn't discuss determinism or error cases for malformed type hints, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and return values, tight sentences otherwise. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is unrelated promotional content that doesn't earn its place, a minor deduction.

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 2-parameter hash-computation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and the no-wallet requirement. Sufficient to invoke correctly, though nested-object handling relies entirely on the schema.

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 schema already documents domain fields and the message type-hint convention. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what's in the schema, 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?

Specific verb ('Compute') plus resource ('SIP-018 message hash') with an explicit negation ('without signing') that cleanly separates it from the sibling sip018_sign and sip018_verify. The description also enumerates exactly what is returned (encoded hash, domain hash, message hash).

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?

States the use case ('preparing data for on-chain verification or multi-sig coordination') and the key condition ('without signing', 'does not require an unlocked wallet'), which implicitly routes the agent away from sip018_sign. It stops short of an explicit when-not/alternative statement but the context is clear.

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