Request Agent Delegation Signature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the signing primitive (eth_signTypedData_v4) and that approval happens interactively in the WalletChan popup by the main wallet, which is real behavioral context. It omits error/rejection behavior, wallet/permission requirements, and whether the request blocks.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the approval mechanism. Nothing is padded.

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?

Adequate minimum for a single-parameter signing request with no output schema, but thin given zero annotations: the agent is not told what a successful signed result enables next, what happens on rejection, or how this fits with agent_complete_delegation.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains delegationId as 'Pending delegation ID returned by agent_prepare_delegation.' The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 ('Open ... eth_signTypedData_v4 request') and a specific resource ('pending agent delegation'), which distinguishes it from generic siblings like sign and sign_siwe. It stops short of naming which sibling precedes or follows it in the flow.

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 phrase 'for a pending agent delegation' implies it should be called after a delegation is prepared (schema points at agent_prepare_delegation), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no mention of the natural follow-up (agent_complete_delegation).

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