register_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the signature-based authorization mechanism and that the server cannot generate the signature. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., idempotency, what happens if agent already exists) or error scenarios. It is adequate but lacks some behavioral details.

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 concise paragraph that front-loads the purpose and immediately provides key usage details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 and lack of output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, authorization, external signing, and constraints on expires_at. It lacks details on return value, error handling, and idempotency, but still provides a clear operational picture. A score of 4 reflects it as mostly complete with minor gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context beyond schema by explaining the EIP-712 domain and struct, the external signing requirement, and default expiry behavior. This extra information justifies a score of 4.

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 tool's purpose: 'Register a delegated agent key so an AI agent can trade on a wallet's behalf without holding the wallet key.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_agents and revoke_agent.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: it explains that authorization is via an EIP-712 signature, that the server cannot produce it, and that no API credentials are needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like revoke_agent.

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