prepare_ticket_purchase

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

Goes beyond the annotations with the two facts that matter most: the output is unsigned wallet transactions and the tool itself never signs or broadcasts. The approval/policy requirement is real operational context. It does not reconcile the destructiveHint=true annotation with the 'nothing happens yet' framing, nor explain that the returned payload becomes destructive only on submission.

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?

Two short sentences with the hard constraints front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause carries either scope or a safety condition.

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?

An output schema covers return values, but a 7-parameter financial tool with zero parameter documentation anywhere leaves the agent unable to correctly form the 'numbers' array or reason about idempotency/expiry. The description also never resolves why idempotency_key exists alongside idempotentHint=false.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. 'numbers' (count, range, uniqueness), 'idempotency_key', 'agent_id', 'referral_id', and 'valid_until' formats are never explained; only the 1-USDC price ceiling is hinted at.

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?

Names a specific verb (prepare), a precisely bounded resource (exactly one unsigned 1-USDC Base ticket purchase), and the key scope constraint that it never signs or broadcasts. That scope statement implicitly but clearly separates it from confirm_ticket_purchase among the siblings.

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?

Explicitly states the required precondition: obtain owner approval or apply a narrow owner policy before submitting the returned wallet transactions. It implies prepare-then-confirm workflow but never names confirm_ticket_purchase as the follow-up step, so routing among siblings is inferred rather than stated.

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