write.wallet.approve

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

The description discloses that the tool builds an unsigned transaction (no side effects), matches idempotentHint=true, and explains behavioral differences between token types. Annotations already confirm safe mutation (destructiveHint=false), and description adds context without contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, each essential: core function, token-type differentiation, prerequisite usage, and a practical tip. No superfluous content; information is front-loaded and well-organized.

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 tool's multi-token nature and prerequisite role, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, token behavior, required context (before deposit/add_liquidity), and a best-practice tip. Output schema exists, so return details are handled elsewhere.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that amount is for ERC20 only and spender_address should be the Arcadia account address, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 builds unsigned approval transactions for tokens, specifying two cases (ERC20 approve, ERC721/ERC1155 setApprovalForAll). It also explicitly connects to its prerequisite role for other tools, distinguishing it from sibling write tools.

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 explicitly states when this tool is required (before write.account.deposit and add_liquidity) and advises checking allowances first via read.wallet.allowances, effectively communicating when to use and when to skip.

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