sign_message_ltc

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but description adds critical behavior: BIP-137 scheme, return of signature+messageSha256, drainer-string refusal before device interaction, and Taproot refusal. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is dense but well-structured, front-loading purpose. Could be slightly streamlined but effectively communicates key points without excess.

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 no output schema, description explains return values, UX, refusal conditions, and wallet constraints. References sibling tool. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by confirming wallet must be paired, reiterating Taproot refusal, and providing context on message encoding and prefix. Adds beyond 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 clearly states the tool signs a UTF-8 message with a paired Litecoin address using BIP-137, specifying the prefix, return values, and linking to sibling sign_message_btc for UX similarity. It distinguishes by coin and refusal of Taproot.

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?

Implied usage is signing Litecoin messages. It provides conditions for refusal (drainer strings, Taproot) and mentions same UX as BTC sibling, but lacks explicit alternative or when-not-to-use guidance.

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