execution-run-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a cryptographic signing operation (implying mutation or sensitive action) and returns specific data, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's idempotent. The mention of 'proving your identity' adds some context, but behavioral traits are not fully covered.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by return values and use case in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 complexity (cryptographic operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, returns, and use case, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like security implications or error handling. Without an output schema, it should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, though it does list them briefly.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'challenge' as a 'Base64-encoded challenge to sign'. The description does not add any further meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid challenges or formatting details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Sign a challenge') with the resource ('your card's Ed25519 keypair') and distinguishes it from siblings like get_balance or transfer by focusing on cryptographic signing for identity verification. It explicitly mentions the return values (signature, cardId, walletId) and the use case ('proving your identity to other bots').

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful for proving your identity to other bots'), which implicitly differentiates it from siblings like compute or get_transactions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., if other tools handle authentication differently), leaving some guidance gaps.

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