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

The annotations only say this is a safe, closed-world, non-idempotent read. The description adds what they cannot: a paid URL at 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, a required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to the exact JSON arguments and route, and an Ed25519 signed receipt on the response. That is real operational context well beyond the structured hints.

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?

It front-loads the purpose and the policy shape before payment mechanics, and nearly every sentence earns its place. The payment and proof-binding sentences are long and dense, but that detail is load-bearing for correct invocation, so the cost is justified.

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, and the description fills that gap by naming the verdict values (compliant, breaches_found, not_computable), the per-rule output with computed shares, and the signed receipt. For a nested two-object input with a paid auth path, 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description still adds meaning: it explains that wallet labels and addresses are read as written and for format only, which stops an agent from expecting address resolution against real chains. It also summarizes the policy rule families (per-asset and per-chain caps, min reserve, avoid lists) that map onto the nested objects.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: submit balances plus a stated treasury policy, and get a per-rule compliance verdict back. It also scopes what the tool reads, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings such as wever_treasury-balance or wever_treasury-flows without opening a schema.

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?

"Reads only the material in the call: no wallet, chain, market, bank or counterparty lookup" tells the agent when this tool is appropriate (you already hold the balances) and implicitly when it is not (use a lookup tool instead). It stops short of naming a specific alternative sibling, so it falls just below the top mark.

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