waxseal.signature.verify

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: it fetches the public key from the WaxSeal network and performs local verification. It explains a precondition (on-chain minting). However, it could be more explicit about potential failures (e.g., network issues, invalid signature format) or success conditions.

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 three sentences long with no fluff. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, followed by two sentences explaining the verification process and a key requirement. Each sentence adds essential information.

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 is simple with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main actions and preconditions. However, it does not specify the return value (presumably boolean or status), which is helpful for an agent to interpret the result. This gap prevents a higher score.

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% and parameter descriptions are already informative. The tool description adds context that the signature is 'Base64 Ed25519 signature returned by waxseal.document.sign' and the fingerprint is '64-character hex', which helps agents understand the expected formats beyond the schema.

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: verifying an Ed25519 signature produced by a specific signer. It specifies the algorithm, the source (WaxSeal network), and a precondition. Differentiates from sibling tools like waxseal.approval.verify and waxseal.identity.verify by focusing on pure signature verification.

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 indicates when to use the tool: after signing with waxseal.document.sign or any WaxSeal-compatible signer. It also mentions a precondition (seal must be minted on-chain). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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