erc8004__export_attestation

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the output is unsigned and content-addressed, and that the user must sign it themselves. It does not specify side effects or read-only status, but the description provides adequate transparency about the tool's non-finalizing nature.

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 sentence with a bracketed prefix that adds context. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the core purpose but lacks explanation of parameters and return format. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the agent may have difficulty using the tool correctly without additional parameter details.

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% and the description does not explain the parameters chain_id and token_id beyond their names. The description adds no meaning to these required fields, forcing the agent to guess their semantics.

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 verb (Export), the resource (agent's current trust score), and the output format (UNSIGNED ERC-8004 Validation Registry-shaped payload). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like import_registration, bind_identity, and verify_attestation, which handle different aspects of the ERC-8004 workflow.

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 implies the tool is used to prepare an unsigned attestation for the user's own signing, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like erc8004__verify_attestation. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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