stacks_sign_message

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the prefixing behavior and the unlocked-wallet requirement, but says nothing about what is returned (a signature string?), whether any on-chain transaction is produced, or what happens on a locked wallet.

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 signing explanation is front-loaded and tight, but the trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is unrelated promotional content that does not help an agent invoke this tool and dilutes the definition.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers format and prerequisites but omits the return value and any failure modes. Adequate to call it, not complete enough to predict its output.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that the message is plain text and will be prefixed. The description restates that same prefixing fact rather than adding new constraints such as length limits or encoding.

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 plain text message') plus the exact signing format used, including the '\x17Stacks Signed Message:\n' prefix. That format detail separates it from the many sibling signing tools (btc_sign_message, sip018_sign, schnorr_sign_digest) without needing to name them.

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 use cases (proving address ownership, authentication, sign-in flows) and a prerequisite ('Requires an unlocked wallet'). It never explicitly says when to prefer sip018_sign or btc_sign_message instead, so the alternatives dimension is left to inference.

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