prepare_inputs

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the multi-step process (signing, querying EAS, building Merkle proof) which implies non-trivial behavior. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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, well-structured paragraph front-loads the purpose ('Step 1'), then details actions, sequencing, and conditional parameters. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given 6 parameters, 3 circuit variants, and no output schema, the description covers the overall process, sequencing, and circuit-specific requirements. However, it lacks a description of the return value structure, which would be helpful for downstream use.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, but the description adds value by explaining conditional usage (e.g., jwt/scope for oidc_domain, is_included/country_list for coinbase_country) and defaults like provider defaulting to 'google'. This reduces ambiguity beyond the schema alone.

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 it is step 1 of a step-by-step flow, explicitly listing the actions (compute hash, sign, query EAS, build Merkle proof) and outputs (all inputs for proof generation). It distinguishes between circuit types (oidc_domain vs Coinbase-specific), making the tool's specific role unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this tool BEFORE request_challenge, providing clear sequencing. Also specifies when to provide jwt/scope for oidc_domain circuit versus other parameters, giving contextual usage guidance for different circuits.

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