fdc_request_attestation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the preparation via Flare-hosted verifier, fee query, and conditional submission. It also mentions return values (tx hash, voting round id) or prepared request. Missing details on error handling or rate limits, but core behavior is clear.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no redundant information. Highly efficient.

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?

Despite clear purpose and behavior, the description lacks essential details about the request_body parameter, which is a nested object with no schema explanation. Without this, the tool cannot be used correctly. Output schema is absent, adding to the incompleteness.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It lists the three attestation types but provides no guidance on the required request_body format or how to structure the nested object. This is a significant gap for correct usage.

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 ('Submit an FDC attestation request') and specifies the three attestation types (Payment, AddressValidity, EVMTransaction). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fdc_get_attestation_proof by focusing on submission.

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 explicitly explains two modes based on whether FLARE_PRIVATE_KEY is set, which guides when to expect automatic submission vs. external submission. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with siblings.

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