insumer_attest

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

With no annotations, the description details behavioral traits: returns ECDSA-signed boolean results with kid, never exposes balances, includes evaluatedCondition, conditionHash, blockNumber/blockTimestamp for RPC chains, XRPL specifics, trust line state, credit costs, and proof mode. This fully compensates for missing annotations.

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 paragraph but is information-dense. Key information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, though a structured bullet list could improve readability. It is still concise for the complexity covered.

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?

No output schema is present, but the description thoroughly explains return values, including per-condition fields and chain-specific differences. It covers all mode variations (standard, proof, JWT format) and condition types. The description is complete given the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description adds critical context: e.g., for bitcoinWallet use chainId 'bitcoin' with contractAddress 'native', for XRPL trust lines use currency, for Farcaster type 'farcaster_id', and template names for EAS. It explains the JWT format parameter. This goes well 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 'Create on-chain verification (attestation)' and specifies the scope: verifying 1-10 conditions across 33 chains. It distinguishes from sibling tools like insumer_compliance_templates by referencing it for listing templates, and insumer_verify is a different operation. The verb 'verify' and resource 'attestation' are specific.

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 explains when to use the tool (to create attestations) and provides guidance on modes, credits, and template usage. It explicitly advises using insumer_compliance_templates to list available templates, indicating a decision point. However, it does not contrast with other sibling tools like insumer_verify or explicitly state when not to use it.

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