recover_signer

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the outcome (recovering the signer address) but says nothing about signature format (e.g., 65-byte, r/s/v), message hashing requirements, error behavior, or whether the operation is pure/read-only. This leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the core operation. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail; it is concise and front-loaded with the verb.

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 simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no nested objects, no output schema) and complete schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify expected signature format or return value structure, leaving some gaps for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with brief descriptions for both parameters ('Original message' and 'Signature'). The description itself adds no further explanation or nuance beyond these schema fields, 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 is specific and action-oriented: 'Recover the signer address from a signature'. It clearly identifies the verb (recover), the resource (signer address), and the input (signature), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_message_signature or sign_message by focusing on recovery of the address.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is only implied by the name and description; an agent could infer this is for obtaining the signer address from a signature, but the description does not state exclusions or mention when not to use it.

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