assetfare_start_wallet_auth

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, which could imply a mutating operation, but the description clarifies the actual scope: 'Makes a network request and creates login-challenge state, but cannot move funds, sign, or submit.' This meaningfully contextualizes the non-read-only hint and prevents the agent from assuming the tool can execute transactions. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: the first fronts the core purpose with key qualifiers, the second provides usage conditions and exclusion, the third discloses behavioral limits. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information appears first.

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, the description covers purpose, preconditions, exclusions, and behavioral safety limits comprehensively. The only minor gap is that it doesn't name the natural follow-up step (e.g., assetfare_finish_wallet_auth) or hint at the response shape, but the sibling naming and 'login-challenge state' mention make this a small omission rather than a blocking one.

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% — the sole parameter 'source_wallet' is already well documented in the schema as a caller-owned public address with an explicit warning against seed phrases/private keys. The tool description adds only indirect context (the fresh quote precondition), so the schema carries the heavy lifting and 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 states a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('short-lived, non-transactional Solana signMessage challenge'), scoped precisely to the legacy v1 workflow. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling family by explicitly noting that v2 quote and session tools do not use wallet authentication, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 explicit preconditions ('Use only after selecting a fresh legacy assetfare_quote and obtaining caller approval') and an explicit exclusion ('v2 quote and session tools do not use wallet authentication'). This tells the agent both when to invoke this tool and when not to, leaving little to inference.

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