hash_typed_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of the EIP-712 standard, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention the return format (e.g., hex-encoded hash), potential error conditions, or any dependencies, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence that is fully front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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 has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns, but it does not. It also lacks context about the EIP-712 hashing process or how the output relates to signing. This incompleteness could leave an AI agent uncertain about the result and how to use it.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (domain, types, primaryType, message) already described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Hash typed structured data according to EIP-712' clearly states the verb (hash), the resource (typed structured data), and the standard (EIP-712). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sign_typed_data and verify_typed_data_signature by focusing specifically on hashing.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is a single sentence without context, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the purpose implies usage for hashing EIP-712 data, it does not explain when hashing is appropriate compared to signing or verifying.

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