solana_signMessage

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that signing produces a signature, whether the operation is deterministic, if it consumes gas, or what the output format looks like. The agent cannot infer side effects or return structure.

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 with no fluff. However, it could be slightly expanded to include return value or usage context without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema and no description of the return value (e.g., signature string), the tool is incomplete. The agent lacks critical information about what to expect after signing. The three parameters are covered, but the missing output context makes it insufficiently informative.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema with clear descriptions ('Message to sign', 'Message encoding', 'ID of the wallet'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 a message with a Solana wallet,' identifying the verb (sign) and resource (message) specific to Solana. It implicitly distinguishes from Ethereum signing tools like personal_sign, but does not explicitly differentiate from other Solana signing tools such as solana_signTransaction or solana_signAndSendTransaction.

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 versus the many sibling signing tools (e.g., raw_sign, secp256k1_sign, solana_signTransaction). There is no mention of prerequisites, message format expectations, or alternatives.

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