sign_message

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the signing method (EIP-191 personal_sign) and that it uses the configured wallet, but does not mention side effects, error conditions, or return format. For a signing operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

One sentence of 12 words, perfectly concise. Action and resource are front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the standard used and the type of message. However, it could specify the return value (likely the signature) to be more complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond schema's 'message text to sign' by saying 'arbitrary text message', which is essentially the same.

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 an arbitrary text message using EIP-191 personal_sign with the configured wallet. It specifies the exact standard and distinguishes from sibling sign_typed_data implicitly.

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 implies when to use (when signing an arbitrary text message) but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives like sign_typed_data. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are given.

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