sign_message_ltc

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description goes beyond by detailing the BIP-137 scheme with Litecoin prefix, the return value (signature + messageSha256), and the pre-device drainer-string refusal behavior. This adds substantial context about the signing process and security measures.

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 moderately long but front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence provides relevant technical detail (scheme, prefix, return fields, refusal conditions). It could be slightly more concise but remains efficient and informative.

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, the description covers return values (signature + messageSha256) and their purpose (byte-fingerprint for verification). It addresses edge cases like taproot refusal and drainer-string rejection, and references issue numbers for traceability. The tool is fully described for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage on both parameters (wallet and message). The description adds value by specifying that the wallet must already be in pairings.litecoin and that taproot addresses are refused, which is not in the schema. This extra context justifies a score higher than baseline 3.

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 it signs a UTF-8 message with a paired Litecoin address using BIP-137, specifying the prefix and naming the scheme. It distinguishes from sibling sign_message_btc by mentioning the same clear-sign UX and Litecoin-specific prefix, and explicitly states what is refused (taproot addresses, drainer strings).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (signing messages with paired LTC addresses), when not to (taproot addresses refused, drainer strings refused), and references sibling sign_message_btc for Bitcoin. It also explains the clear-sign UX is identical to that sibling, aiding tool selection.

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