peck_function_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is posted on-chain, includes args and provider bapID, is signed by the MCP keychain identity, and results in a provider reply in the feed. It could mention irreversibility/cost or failure modes, but the core side effects and async flow are clearly 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then mechanism and signing context. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a five-parameter on-chain write with no output schema, the description covers purpose, provider interaction, and identity. However, it does not describe the return value or how to retrieve the provider's eventual reply; referencing peck_function_check_calls would make it more complete.

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 already describes 4/5 parameters (80% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description loosely echoes 'args + provider bapID' and the keychain identity, but adds no detail for the undocumented agent_app parameter and does not clarify the args JSON shape beyond the schema.

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?

States the operation explicitly ('Call a registered function') and distinguishes itself from peck_function_register and peck_functions by describing the on-chain call/response flow. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 use case—invoking an existing registered function—but never explicitly says when to prefer it over alternatives like peck_function_register or peck_function_check_calls. It also does not state exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit 'registered' status.

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