verify_signature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states the core verification function but does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, return format, or safety profile (e.g., whether it is read-only). This is a significant gap for a tool that verifies authenticity.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is optimally brief and clear.

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 tool is simple with full schema coverage, but there is no output schema. The description does not explain what the tool returns or what happens on success/failure, which is a gap given the absence of an output schema. It also doesn't mention prerequisites in the description itself. Overall, it is minimally complete but lacks important result-related context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters, with clear descriptions for 'response' and 'expectedSigner'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 a specific action ('Verify a zkVerify ECDSA signature') and the target resource ('on a previous response'). It also adds the purpose of the verification ('Checks signer authenticity'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_contract and verify_balance, which likely perform different verification tasks.

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 implies usage context: it is used on a previous response, which indicates a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or when not to use it. The context signal that parameters come from verify_balance or verify_contract is only in the schema, not the description.

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