attest_onchain

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

The description says 'Write a numguard verification' which contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint=true, as writing an attestation is a state-changing operation. This is a serious inconsistency and violates the annotation contract. The description also fails to disclose other behavioral aspects like gas costs or whether the attestation is immediately visible.

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 front-loads the core action but includes excessive marketing language like 'Reputation as a real-world asset, industry-standard, no token' that adds little operational value. It is somewhat verbose for the amount of practical information conveyed.

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 (creating an on-chain attestation) and lack of output schema, the description explains the purpose and benefits well but does not cover return values, failure modes, or prerequisite conditions such as needing a funded wallet. It is adequate for basic understanding but leaves several operational gaps.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, including the nested receipt object and optional recipient. The description adds minimal extra meaning, mainly reinforcing that only valid receipts are attested, which is already implied by 'valid vcr/1 receipt'. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 writes a numguard verification as an EAS attestation on Base, specifying the action (write), resource (attestation), and context (Ethereum Attestation Service). It distinguishes this from siblings like check_attestation and issue_receipt by emphasizing the on-chain composable credential aspect.

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 the tool: to create a queryable, composable on-chain credential that protocols can use for gating or allocation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is well implied through the description of the beneficiary protocols.

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