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

Description explicitly says 'Read-only' and adds useful behavioral context about non-custodial settlement to the withdrawal address. This complements the readOnlyHint annotation and provides transparency beyond the metadata.

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 information-dense with no filler. It opens with a plain-language purpose, enumerates the key returned data, and closes with a necessary behavioral note, all in three concise sentences.

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 parameterless read-only tool, the description fully covers what the user gets back and the settlement behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The input schema already explains that no arguments are needed and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal; the description adds no parameter-specific detail because none is needed.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks earnings and summarizes what is returned: lifetime USDC, pending amounts, rewards, payout balance, buyer spend, and reputation. The verb 'check' plus the explicit resource scope distinguishes it from sibling financial tools.

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 clearly signals this is a read-only earnings summary tool and includes behavioral context about settlement. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended usage is clear from the content.

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