sign_typed_data

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose that the wallet must be unlocked, any potential side effects, or the signature format returned (e.g., hex string). Insufficient detail for a signing operation.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with key information. No wasted words, but could benefit from slight expansion for completeness without harming conciseness.

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 complexity of EIP-712 signing and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (signature format), prerequisites (wallet state), or differentiate clearly from sign_message.

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 100% with brief descriptions for each parameter. The description merely restates 'Provide domain, types, and value' without adding semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'sign' and the resource 'EIP-712 typed data' with the configured wallet. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sign_message' which handles simple messages only.

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 mentions to provide domain, types, and value but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sign_message for simple messages). No when-not or alternative tool names given.

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