submit_sponsored_mint

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the action is a write (broadcast) and involves signing. However, it does not detail success/failure behavior, side effects, or authorization requirements beyond the accessToken parameter. It lacks specificity on what happens after broadcast.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous information. It is front-loaded and concise.

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 (4 required parameters, multi-step workflow, no output schema), the description covers the basic action but omits output hints, error scenarios, and prerequisite conditions. It relies on the context from sibling tools like prepare_sponsored_mint. Without an output schema, it would benefit from mentioning what the tool returns (e.g., transaction hash).

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% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context by explaining the role of each parameter in the two-step signing process, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what schema descriptions already give.

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 signs a prepared sponsored mint transaction as the sponsor and broadcasts it with the user's signature. It uses a specific verb (sign and broadcast) and resource (sponsored mint transaction), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_sponsored_mint that prepare the transaction.

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 the tool is the final step after prepare_sponsored_mint by mentioning 'prepared sponsored mint transaction'. It also indicates it is for the configured sponsor. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, such as if the user is not the sponsor.

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