eth_signTypedData_v4

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden. It only states that the tool signs typed data, omitting any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, authentication needs, or what the signature output represents.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information, and simply restates the method name.

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 complexity with a nested input and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or any prerequisites for using the wallet ID.

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% and the input schema already describes the parameters in detail, including the nested typed_data object. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Sign EIP-712 typed data' with a specific verb and resource. It mentions the method name, which distinguishes it from sibling signing tools like personal_sign or eth_signTransaction, but does not explicitly differentiate its use case.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., personal_sign, eth_signTransaction). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or 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.