process_sp_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals an important behavioral trait: the tool does not sign or submit; it returns an unsigned CBOR-hex transaction for client-side signing, which clarifies what 'process' means in practice. It does not detail downstream effects (e.g., whether the pending request is removed upon submission), but the key non-obvious behavior is disclosed.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, then states the crucial output format with zero filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a protocol-maintenance tool with four fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, the return format and serialization (CBOR hex), and the need for client-side signing. It could add how to locate the pending request or what happens after signing, but the current description is enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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% and each parameter already has a clear meaning (address, asset enum, accountTxHash, accountOutputIndex). The description adds no new parameter-level information, so it meets the baseline 3 expected 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 operation—processing a pending stability pool request—and characterizes it as a protocol maintenance operation that returns an unsigned transaction for client-side signing. This is distinct from read-only sibling tools and from create/close/adjust/annul operations, though it does not explicitly name the alternative it is not, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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 'Process a pending stability pool request' implies the tool is appropriate when a pending request exists and should be executed, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as annul_sp_request for cancellation. The maintenance-operation note adds context but no exclusions or prerequisites.

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