sip018_verify

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 discloses the core behavior: recovering the public key and deriving the signer's Stacks address. It does not state whether the operation is purely read-only, what errors occur on invalid signatures, or how the optional expectedSigner parameter changes the response.

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 description is short and front-loaded, clearly stating the verification and recovery behavior first. However, the trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' sentence is unrelated to invoking this tool and does not earn its place, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 are no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain behavior and returns more fully. It covers the primary input source and the recovered address, but it does not describe the response shape or clarify what is returned when expectedSigner is supplied, leaving an important gap for a verification tool.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the source of messageHash from sip018_sign or sip018_hash, but this repeats the schema and it omits the optional expectedSigner parameter entirely. The baseline of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Verify a SIP-018 signature and recover the signer's address.' It also names the related sip018_sign and sip018_hash tools as the source of the required verification hash, which distinguishes this operation from generic message or digest verification siblings.

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 gives prerequisite context by stating the verification hash comes from sip018_sign or sip018_hash 'verification' field. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus siblings such as stacks_verify_message, btc_verify_message, or schnorr_verify_digest, leaving the choice to be inferred.

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