Sign SIWE

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that validation precedes the request and that a personal_sign request is *started* (not completed), and stresses the exact message is signed. It omits permissions/auth requirements, what the call returns, and how to continue the flow after the request starts.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the validate-then-sign sequence front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a 15-parameter signing tool, but on the conciseness axis itself there is no waste.

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?

The schema is rich (100% coverage) and covers inputs well, but for a signing flow with zero annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify the security/permission implications and what the started request yields. As written, an agent knows the inputs but not the operational consequences.

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%, so every one of the 15 parameters is self-documented, including the 'message omitted' vs 'message provided' distinction. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific two-step operation: validate an EIP-4361 SIWE message, then start a WalletChan personal_sign request. That is a clear verb+resource. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like 'sign' or 'start_remote_mcp_siwe_login'/'complete_remote_mcp_siwe_login', so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The useful routing hint ('Preferred when returned by a protocol login_start tool') lives only in the schema for the 'message' property, not in the description, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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