create_permit_signature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Create an EIP-2612 permit signature' and does not mention that this is an off-chain operation, that the signature is not broadcast, or what the output format will be. The sensitive privateKey security note appears only in the schema, not the description, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains zero fluff and communicates the tool's core function effectively.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, a private key input, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain that the signature is off-chain, that the token must support EIP-2612, how the private key is used, or what the return value looks like. Sibling tools like approve_token_spending or sign_typed_data are not differentiated beyond the 'gasless' hint, making the description incomplete for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.

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 each parameter having a descriptive comment, so the schema already provides full parameter meaning. The description itself adds minimal extra value beyond implying the parameters are EIP-2612 components, which is sufficient to meet the baseline but not exceed it.

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 exact action: creating an EIP-2612 permit signature. It names the specific standard (EIP-2612) and the purpose (gasless token approvals), which immediately distinguishes it from general signing tools like sign_typed_data or on-chain approval tools like approve_token_spending.

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 phrase 'gasless token approvals' provides clear context for when to use this tool (when an off-chain permit signature is needed instead of an on-chain approval). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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