stacks_verify_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that it applies the Stacks prefix before verifying, but it does not describe failure behavior, return shape, authentication needs, or whether the operation is purely read-only.

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 front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing tip to call earning_opportunities is unrelated promotional content that does not help the agent invoke this verification tool.

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?

Given the low complexity and 100% schema coverage, the definition is largely complete: it explains the verification purpose, Stacks prefix behavior, and SIWS compatibility. The lack of an output schema is mostly covered by the return behavior implied in the description and parameter docs, though error semantics remain unstated.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description reiterates the message and signature role but adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially for the optional expectedSigner parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: verify a Stacks message signature and recover the signer address. It adds useful scope with Stacks prefix handling and SIWS compatibility, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby verification siblings such as btc_verify_message or sip018_verify.

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?

It gives an implied usage context by mentioning SIWS authentication flows, which helps an agent understand when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives like btc_verify_message, sip018_verify, or schnorr_verify_digest.

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