get_signer

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'live native-token balance' and 'Chainlink-cached price', indicating read operations and data freshness. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it mention any necessary permissions or potential errors.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value; there is no fluff 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 simple getter with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (metadata, balance, price). It does not mention error cases or what happens if the signer is not found, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 100% with basic parameter descriptions for 'signer_id' and 'project_id'. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Get a KMS signer's metadata + live native-token balance + USD-micros'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_signers' (which lists all signers) and 'delete_signer'.

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 usage for a specific signer (via signer_id) versus list tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_signers' for listing or 'provision_signer' for creating. No when-not or exclusions are provided.

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