Obento

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the 30-day retention window, the newest-first ordering, and the specific categories of entries returned.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first, then the window, then the contents, closing with ordering. Every clause carries information; no filler or repetition of the title.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly self-sufficient for invoking the tool. The only gap is the absence of any note on volume, pagination, or what an empty journal means.

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 is nothing to misinterpret and the baseline is 4. No parameter-level detail is needed or missing.

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 concrete resource (Autopilot's activity journal) and enumerates its contents: lending/taking actions, paid queued withdrawals, and pauses. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like position (current state) or vault_status (status vs. history), though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 the content description (an audit trail of past Autopilot actions) rather than stated. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over position or vault_status, nor any mention of the 30-day window being a hard limit or whether older history is available elsewhere.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that it returns historical and current holdings, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, freshness, or auth requirements beyond what the annotations imply.

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 single run-on sentence mixes multiple concepts (holdings, fees, deposits, withdrawals) without front-loading the core action. It is under-specified rather than concise, and the fragmentary phrasing ('What an address put into Obento, took out, holds now and earned') is hard to parse.

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 one 100%-covered parameter and read-only annotations, the description should at least state the core purpose clearly. It leaves out what the return looks like, how current vs. historical data is structured, and any relationship to sibling tools, making it inadequate for reliable selection.

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% and the address parameter is fully described in the schema. The description does not add syntax or format details, but with complete schema coverage the baseline is 3.

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 the resource ('an address') and enumerates several data categories (deposits, withdrawals, Autopilot fee, earnings), implying a status/position query. However, it never states a clear verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'; 'What an address ... holds now' is indirect and the tool could be confused with vault_status or autopilot_journal among siblings. Purpose is vaguely discernible but not crisp.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus autopilot_journal, vault_status, or the prepare_* tools. No context or exclusions are provided.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that the result is a single page rendered as Markdown, which is useful since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about freshness, auth requirements, or pagination (none needed for a single page).

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 front-loaded sentence naming the resource, the return format, and the content scope. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and a complete enum in the schema, the description is sufficient: it clarifies the returned format and content. It could go slightly further by noting the page list is enumerated in the parameter, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'page' parameter carries a full 14-value enum with its own description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description echoes three enum values (risks, fees, agents) without adding syntax or selection guidance beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific resource (one page of Obento's docs) and a specific output format (Markdown), and enumerates the covered topics, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. No sibling differentiation is stated, but the siblings are unrelated action tools, so confusion risk is low.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to look up how Obento works, fees, risks, security, or the agent guide. There is no explicit when-to-use condition, no statement of when it is unnecessary, and no alternative named.

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