Prepare Strata Vault onboarding

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

Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and not idempotent. The description adds that it performs a registration and mentions that a first deposit 'does this in the same transaction,' implying a combined action. It does not contradict annotations and provides some behavioral context beyond the bare hints.

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 description is highly concise—two sentences—and front-loads the main purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail while still conveying the essential functionality and the optional nature of policy fields. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description gives enough context for a basic understanding: it explains the purpose, mentions the one-signature nature, and notes that a first deposit can perform setup in the same transaction. However, it lacks detail on the effects of policy fields, potential failure modes, or how this fits with other vault operations, leaving some gaps for an agent that needs fuller context.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description only vaguely refers to 'policy fields' without explaining each optional parameter (e.g., marketId, expiresAtMs, spendingLimits). The required parameters (walletAddress, sessionPublicKey) are implicitly clear from 'wallet' and 'session key,' but the optional ones are not semantically explained, leaving the agent to infer their meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'register an external session key for a wallet.' It also highlights a unique value proposition ('one session then trades every market') and distinguishes it from other vault operations by emphasizing the 'one-signature onboarding' aspect.

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 provides context on when to use the tool ('Only the wallet and the session key are needed; one session then trades every market') and notes that policy fields are optional. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools (e.g., strata_vault_deposit) or state when not to use it, though the purpose is fairly clear.

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