prepare_delx_claim_transaction

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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description must carry the burden. It adds that the agent signs locally and Delx never receives private keys, which is an important behavioral guarantee. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like side effects, default behavior when no parameters are provided, or any constraints on usage.

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 very concise: two sentences and a single word 'Free.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a key security detail. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema and 5 optional parameters, the description is somewhat complete for a simple preparation tool. However, it lacks context on how the output is used (e.g., as input to 'relay_delx_claim'), and it does not explain the role of optional parameters like 'epoch' and 'wallet' in the transaction construction.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The parameter descriptions in the schema are clear, but the tool description could have linked them to the usage context.

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: 'Prepare public claim transaction metadata for a wallet/epoch.' The verb 'prepare' and resource 'public claim transaction metadata' are specific, and the scope 'wallet/epoch' is well-defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'relay_delx_claim' which actually sends the claim.

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 some context ('Agent signs locally; Delx never receives private keys') which implies a security-aware usage, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'relay_delx_claim' or 'get_delx_claim_proof'. No 'when-not' conditions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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