logicnodes_sig_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.0001 USDC per call) and mentions returning the signer address with on-chain proof, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Since it's a verification tool, it is likely non-destructive, but this is not confirmed.

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 two sentences: one clearly stating functionality and one specifying cost. It is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 has no output schema and only medium parameter count, the description covers the basic purpose and cost. However, it lacks details on input format requirements (e.g., encoding of message and signature), expected return structure (e.g., address format), and any prerequisites. For a developer to use this tool confidently, more detail would be beneficial.

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 only 33% (only expected_signer has a description). The tool description adds context by stating it verifies EIP-712 typed data signatures, implying that 'message' is the typed data and 'signature' is the cryptographic signature. However, it does not explicitly define these parameters' formats (e.g., hex, JSON) or provide per-parameter guidance, leaving 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 performs cryptographic signature verification on Base, specifically EIP-712 typed data, and returns the signer address with on-chain proof. The verb 'verifies' and resource 'signatures' are specific, and the scope (Base blockchain, EIP-712) distinguishes it from sibling tools like logicnodes_gas_oracle or logicnodes_peg_monitor.

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 implies usage for verifying EIP-712 typed data signatures on Base, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify conditions for use or exclusions. The cost mention is helpful but not sufficient for clear usage guidelines.

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