preflight_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it handles this well. It discloses that analysis is static-only, lists omitted capabilities (bytecode verification, proxy resolution, runtime simulation, MEV analysis, counterparty judgment), and explicitly states that 'safe_to_present' does not mean execution is safe. It also clarifies that the descriptor and ABI are caller-supplied, which is a key dependency.

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 well-structured into PURPOSE, GUIDELINES, and LIMITATIONS sections. Every sentence provides substantive information, and the purpose statement is front-loaded. No redundant or fluff content exists; it is concise yet comprehensive for a complex 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 tool's complexity (nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: what it does, how to use it, and its limitations. It also names the return categories (present/review/block plus audit, comprehension, danger, assurance, limitations). However, it does not describe the exact output schema or error behavior, leaving minor gaps. Overall, it is nearly complete for a preflight analysis tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions binding 'chain_id, sender, destination, calldata selector, decoded arguments, ETH value, and an inline ERC-7730 descriptor,' giving high-level meaning to transaction fields and the descriptor. However, it does not detail the expected structure or format of the descriptor object, nor does it explain the exact interpretation of 'safe_to_present' beyond a one-line caveat. It adds semantic value but leaves some param-level ambiguity.

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 purpose: 'Analyze one exact unsigned EVM call before it is presented to a signer.' It specifies the resource (unsigned EVM call), the verb (analyze), and the scope ('only the selected function is assessed'). It distinguishes from siblings by framing itself as 'PRIMARY transaction-time gate' and listing specific outputs (present/review/block) that differ from likely descriptor validation or contract scanning.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this as the PRIMARY transaction-time gate.' The meanings of block, review, and safe_to_present are explained, clarifying when to rely on the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives (e.g., scan_contract, explain_signature, check_descriptor), so it lacks a full when-not comparison.

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