pda_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a derived address, a boolean verification result), how errors are handled, or any side effects. The description merely repeats the tool's name-level concept without adding operational details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It clearly leads with the verb and resource. Despite being terse, it is appropriately concise and easy to parse.

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 cryptographic utility with no output schema and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It fails to specify return values, seed encoding nuances, error conditions, or whether 'verify' means checking a PDA against given seeds. The absence of an output schema makes the description's silence on outputs a significant gap.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information. The schema descriptions are minimal but structurally complete; the description does not go beyond them, so the baseline 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 ('Derive and verify') and a clear resource ('Program Derived Addresses'). This distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which all perform different operations (simulate, decode, error lookup). However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool or elaborate on the 'verify' aspect, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the function without mentioning use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no mention of alternative tools like 'decode_account' or 'simulate_transaction', so the agent receives no contextual direction.

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