waxseal.identity.verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly lists the returned fields (on-chain status, display name, chain, owner wallet, lifecycle status, public key), making it clear this is a read-only operation. It does not disclose potential side effects or auth needs, but those are likely irrelevant for a lookup.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the action and input, the second lists outputs and scope. Every sentence adds value, and the key info is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough: it covers input format, output contents, and supported chains. Missing error handling or edge cases, but these are minor for a straightforward lookup.

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% with a description for 'fingerprint'. The description adds utility details: SHA-256 of Ed25519 public key and optional 0x prefix, which goes beyond the schema's baseline and helps the agent format input correctly.

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 action: look up a WaxSeal cryptographic identity by hex fingerprint. It distinguishes from sibling tools (approvals, signatures, info) by specifying it returns identity-related data like on-chain status, display name, chain, owner, etc.

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: when you have a fingerprint and want identity details. It mentions supported chains but provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. Minimal guidance beyond the core purpose.

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