Build a multi-clause transaction ready for the wallet to sign

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

The description discloses simulation behavior via multicall by default, which surfaces reverts before signing. It also clarifies the server's limitations (no private keys, no broadcasting). This adds significant context beyond the annotations, which already indicate non-read-only and idempotent.

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 paragraph that is informative and not overly verbose. It could be slightly more structured with line breaks, but it is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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's complexity (multi-clause transaction building with optional simulation) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, input format, behavior, and important caveats (no signing/broadcasting). It leaves no major gaps.

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, but the description enhances understanding by explaining the clause structure, mandatory address for erc20/erc721, and the meaning of each field. It also clarifies the args types and default value for valueWei.

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 builds a multi-clause VeChainThor transaction for signing, distinguishing it from read-only tools like callContract. It specifies the input (clauses array) and output (ready-to-sign clauses), and explicitly states it never signs or broadcasts.

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 clear context on when to use (building multi-clause transactions for signing) and what the tool does not do (never holds keys or broadcasts). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the sibling list suggests callContract for single calls.

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