Sign and broadcast a transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation costs $0.01 USDG, defaults to a configured wallet if no private key is given, and moves real funds (a strong warning). It does not describe failure handling or return values, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 sentences, each adding essential information: the core action, the cost, and the default/risk warning. No irrelevant details or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema, some return-value detail would be helpful. The description covers the input source, cost, default key behavior, and caution, which is largely complete for a broadcast operation. Missing explicit return hash or confirmation behavior, but not critical.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by tying the 'tx' parameter to the send tool's output and clarifying that 'privateKey' is optional with a default wallet, which goes beyond the schema's basic 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?

The description clearly states the tool's specific function: signs an unsigned transaction from the send tool and broadcasts it on Robinhood Chain. This distinguishes it from the send tool (which produces the unsigned transaction) and other 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?

The description implies when to use it—after the send tool produces an unsigned transaction—and notes the default wallet behavior. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when' or direct alternative names, but the prerequisite relationship with the send tool is clear.

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