Start Remote MCP SIWE Login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses three behavioral facts: the profile must be allowlisted, the exact challenge is preserved, and a WalletChan signature request is opened (a real side effect). However it omits what happens on failure, whether the call is idempotent, or what state the agent must retain for the follow-up call.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and then the two key behaviors. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more weight. It adequately conveys the initiation and the signature-request side effect, but says nothing about the return value (challenge handle?) or that the agent must follow up with complete_remote_mcp_siwe_login, leaving a gap in a stateful flow.

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 chain, address, and profile are already documented in the schema, including defaults and the 'virtuals' allowlist value. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 (start) and resource (allowlisted remote MCP SIWE login), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling complete_remote_mcp_siwe_login. An agent can tell this is the initiation half of a two-step flow 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?

The word 'Start' implies this is the first step of a login flow, and the sibling complete_remote_mcp_siwe_login hints at the continuation, but the description never explicitly says when to call this versus sign_siwe or what prerequisite/next step applies. Usage is only implied.

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