Both tools have minimal schema definition and weak descriptions. safe4_price has an empty input schema ({}), violating the requirement that parameters must have types and descriptions. safe4_authorize has a complex input schema with 10 parameters, but descriptions are generic and lack actionable guidance. Neither tool documents output schemas. Descriptions are under 100 chars and lack context on when/why to use each tool. No error handling guidance, no parameter constraints (enums, ranges), and no indication of idempotency or side effects. Tool names lack clear verb-noun structure (safe4_authorize is vague about what authorization means).

• Add explicit input schema to safe4_price: document required parameters (endpoint URL, network, preferred_rail, etc.) with types, descriptions, and enums where applicable.
• Enhance safe4_authorize parameter descriptions: specify format for 'amount' (decimal string, e.g., '25.00'), 'currency' (ISO 4217 code), 'allowed_service_categories' (array of strings, enum values), and 'payment' (base64-encoded signature format).
• Document output schemas for both tools: safe4_price should return {accepts: [{network, asset, amount, payTo, extra, ...}], ...}; safe4_authorize should return {decision: 'ALLOW'|'DENY', signature?: string, ...}.
• Add side-effect and idempotency notes: 'safe4_authorize requests a paid authorization decision. Each call may incur a charge. Idempotent if called with identical parameters and same nonce.' Include retry guidance.
• Implement error classification: return structured errors with category (retryable, user-fixable, fatal), actionable message, and next-step guidance. E.g., 'Insufficient funds (user-fixable): Fund your wallet with USDC on Base Sepolia, then retry.'