sign_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it does not broadcast, returns signed transaction, parsed operations, and policy evaluation. This covers safety and expected outcomes without omission.

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?

Extremely concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds necessary detail without fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description states three return components (signed transaction, parsed operations, policy evaluation), sufficient for understanding output. In a complex set of signing siblings, it stands out clearly.

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%, but the description adds value by specifying format differences (base64 vs hex) and clarifying network auto-resolution for Solana, enhancing schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool signs an unsigned transaction without broadcasting, specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like sign_message (signs messages) and send_batch (broadcasts).

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (signing transactions before broadcasting) and specifies format requirements (base64 for Solana, hex for EVM). Lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, but the purpose is well-defined.

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