Get a Bopster login message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the message is one-time, the signing standard, that the resulting session is short-lived and limited to IPFS pinning and portfolio reads, and that it cannot move funds or sign transactions. The rate limit is also stated.

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?

Despite being several sentences, every sentence adds useful context: purpose, prerequisite, signature format, session scope, safety boundary, and rate limit. The most important routing information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains what is returned (a one-time message), how it is used, how long the session lasts, what the session can and cannot do, and the rate limit. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 single wallet parameter is already documented with its format and meaning. The description reinforces that the wallet signs the message but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making baseline 3 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 names a specific resource (a one-time login message) and its exact purpose: signed with personal_sign (EIP-191) to open a short backend session. It also positions the tool as step 1 of creating a market and as a prerequisite for get_portfolio, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it (step 1 of market creation, or before get_portfolio) and when not to overuse it ('ask for one only when you're about to sign it'), with an explicit rate limit of 3 per minute. This is exactly the routing and timing guidance an agent needs.

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