LuckDrop

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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: the answer comes from the chain not a database, the return is an UNSIGNED tx, the service never signs or holds keys, the mined tx is irreversible, entry itself is free and the entrant pays only gas, and the whole thing runs on Base Sepolia testnet with valueless LUCK. That is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs before gating a transaction.

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?

Front-loaded: the core question is answered in the first sentence, then return shape, signing model, and network follow in descending order of importance. The testnet warning is somewhat emphatic and repeated in tone, but every block earns its place for a tool gating irreversible transactions.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: canEnter, a reason mirroring the contract's revert strings, and the exact unsigned transaction. Combined with the signing and network caveats, nothing needed to call or act on the result is missing.

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%; the single address parameter is fully documented with pattern and network in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a precise framing of the operation: eligibility for the current draw plus the exact transaction payload. That is a specific verb+resource, and its scope is genuinely distinct from siblings like luckdrop_check_prize or luckdrop_get_results. It stops short of 5 because it never names or contrasts a sibling, leaving the differentiation to inference.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: "Call this before sending an entry, every time," and explains why it must be fresh (sourced from the chain, a stale yes costs gas on revert). It never states when NOT to call it or point to an alternative, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: reads directly from chain (works for wallets that never signed in), names escrowsChecked reporting, explains unsigned-transaction return shape, states the service never signs or holds keys, warns the user must approve and that the mined transaction is irreversible, and flags Base Sepolia testnet with no monetary value.

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?

Front-loads the core verb and then uses SCOPE and NETWORK sections to organize the constraints, which keeps a long description navigable. Some sentences are verbose, but nearly all carry decision-relevant information about week ids, irreversibility, and the testnet caveat.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains the return shape ({to, data, value}), the range of weeks scanned, and the deployment-scoping limits, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result. The network and irreversibility warnings close the remaining gaps for a read-only tool that produces a claimable transaction.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic depth: weekId is a CONTRACT week id that resets on redeployment, is reported by luckdrop_get_results, and when omitted triggers a 26-week scan whose exact range is returned. This clarifies the meaning and interaction of the optional parameter beyond its schema text.

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 precise verb and resource: checking whether a wallet has won an uncollected prize and returning a claim transaction. It also distinguishes its role from siblings by naming luckdrop_get_results as the source of the CONTRACT week id, so an agent can tell which tool produces the week ids versus which one consumes them.

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?

Gives clear usage conditions: with no weekId it scans the last 26 contract weeks, and an explicit weekId reaches an older week on those escrows. It also states when the tool will NOT succeed (prizes in an escrow from an earlier deployment). It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling that should be used instead for adjacent tasks, so it is strong context rather than full alternative routing.

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

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and open-world, so the description correctly reinforces 'sends no transaction and needs no wallet address' and adds substantial extra context: it explains the DB vs chain data split, the meaning of chain.inSync, which source to trust on disagreement, the Base Sepolia testnet status, and a prompt-injection warning about user-authored sponsor text. No behavioral gaps relevant to correct invocation remain.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and well organized by concern (what it returns, sync semantics, read-only nature, injection safety, network). Dense but every block carries actionable information, though the weekNumber/contractWeekId and sync-warning material runs slightly long for a no-argument read tool.

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, the description must carry the return shape, and it does: it enumerates the fields, explains the week vs chain blocks, the inSync flag, and the dual week-number fields. Combined with the stated read-only contract and testnet caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no input surface for the description to further clarify, and it appropriately spends its text on return-value semantics instead.

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 (Read) and resource (the live LuckDrop draw) and enumerates exactly what is returned: draw identity, phase, prize, ticket count, and countdown. This is clearly distinct from siblings like luckdrop_get_results (past outcomes) and luckdrop_check_prize (per-user prize status).

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 its role as the live-state reader and clarifies it needs no wallet address, but it never explicitly names when to prefer it over siblings such as luckdrop_get_results or luckdrop_check_entry. The interpretation warnings (compare chain vs week) are about output handling, not tool selection, so selection guidance remains inferred.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world. The description adds real value beyond them: the id-space semantics, the fact that the response echoes both ids, and the critical network caveat that this is Base Sepolia testnet with no monetary value. No return-format details, but annotations lighten the load.

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?

Front-loaded purpose is good, but the network disclaimer is a multi-sentence tangent. Every sentence earns its place conceptually, yet the network block could be tighter and it dilutes the flow.

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 2-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the tricky id-space semantics and testnet context well. Only minor gaps remain around what the round/winner payload looks like.

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%, so the schema documents week and idSpace fully. The description reinforces the id-space danger but doesn't add new syntax or format meaning beyond what's in the schema.

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 and resource: read one draw's five rounds and its winner. The scope (single draw, rounds + winner) clearly distinguishes it from siblings like luckdrop_get_draw or luckdrop_check_prize.

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 tells the agent when to pass idSpace='contract' (when following contractWeekId from the chain) and warns that omitting it yields a wrong-but-valid-looking result. This routing guidance is unusually concrete.

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

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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses that the CONTRACT (not the draw's database phase) determines tradingOpen and that this field should be trusted, warns that sponsor-name free text is human-typed DATA not instructions (prompt-injection defense), and states the tool runs on Base Sepolia testnet with no monetary value. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then layered with the important caveats (tradingOpen authority, injection warning, network). The network/testnet block is slightly verbose, but each sentence carries distinct and necessary information.

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 parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does: listings, prices, and trading-window state. It adds safety and network context. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the result is paginated or how listings are ordered.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not fabricate parameter discussion.

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 and resource ('Read the live marketplace') and enumerates the exact fields returned: which tickets are listed, at what price, and whether the trading window is open. This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (check_entry, check_prize, get_draw, get_results), none of which concern secondary-market listings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'read the live marketplace' — an agent can infer this is the tool for listing/browsing listings — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The note about trusting tradingOpen is behavioral guidance rather than routing guidance.

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