Relay Agent Calls With 1Shot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: the dry-run/preview default and the confirm=true gate required to actually submit. It omits failure modes, fee-charging behavior, and irreversibility of a relayed bundle, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite and default-mode caveat following immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 17-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite and the submit gate but says nothing about what is returned (taskId, status, estimate payload) or how to follow up. The rich schema compensates for parameter gaps, but the return/follow-up story is left entirely implicit.

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% across all 17 parameters, so the schema already documents memo, chain, confirm, estimateOnly, skipEstimate, payment fields, etc. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond reiterating the preview/confirm behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb set (build, estimate, submit), a specific resource (ERC-7710 delegated transaction bundle), and the channel (1Shot public relayer). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like agent_oneshot_get_status, agent_oneshot_get_capabilities, or the generic send_calls without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite (an active 1Shot-compatible agent delegation whose delegate equals the relayer targetAddress) and the default operating mode (preview unless confirm=true). It does not name alternative tools for the estimate-only or status-checking paths, so it stops short of explicit when-not routing.

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