nostr_sign_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a price ('2 sats') and implies a payment process via the 'payment_preimage' parameter, but doesn't explain key behaviors like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the signing process entails (e.g., is it atomic, reversible?). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The second sentence about price adds context but could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though not perfectly structured.

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 complexity (a signing tool with payment integration), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, and behavioral traits, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 all parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'kind' values or 'tags' structure). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Sign a Nostr event') and the mechanism ('using a sovereign signing daemon'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nostr_post_note' or 'nostr_publish_event', which might involve signing, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a price of '2 sats', which hints at a cost context, but doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., needing a payment first) or compare to other Nostr tools in the sibling list, leaving usage unclear.

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