verify_signature

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but omits what happens on verification failure (e.g., error vs. false return), whether the recovered address is always returned, and any assumptions about message formatting or hashing. The description adds only the recovery aspect beyond the name.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary verb ('Verify') and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the return type (boolean vs. address), the role of expectedAddress in validation, or error behavior. Given the cluster of similarly named sibling tools (verify_message, verify_message_signature, recover_signer), more context is needed.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no further semantic detail beyond implying that 'message' is the signed message and 'signer address' relates to the recovered address, which is already evident from the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('message signature') and adds the outcome ('recover the signer address'), making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from signing tools (e.g., sign_message) and typed-data variants by mentioning the signer recovery.

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 information on when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_message, verify_message_signature, or verify_typed_data_signature. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on names alone.

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