sign_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Sign a transaction input with a private key,' omitting details on side effects, return value, security implications, or limitations (e.g., whether it modifies the original transaction).

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 terse sentence with no wasted words. While it lacks detail, it is concise and front-loads the core purpose.

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 complexity of signing transactions (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description is insufficient. It does not explain input/output formats, default values, or error conditions, making it inadequate for an agent to use correctly without external context.

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 no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the hex format of `tx_hex` and `privkey` or the significance of `sighash_type` options.

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 action (sign) and the resource (transaction input with a private key). It differentiates from sibling tools like `verify_signature` and `sign_message` by specifying 'transaction input'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with `sign_message`, so clarity is high but not perfect.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `sign_message` or `verify_signature`). The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate or what prerequisites are required.

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