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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the server never holds funds and never accepts a private key, recovery phrase, or note secret — an important trust boundary an agent should know before calling anything here. It does not describe what the response contains, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the scope statement and the call-to-action, followed by the security caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description covers the content categories an agent would get back and the trust model. It could say a bit more about the shape of the returned information, but nothing needed 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a zero-input call and there is nothing further to document.

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 a specific content scope — what Gloam is, what the hosted server can do, and where to sign or spend — which is more than a restatement of the title. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like gloam_mpp_how_to or gloam_networks, but the orientation framing plus 'Call this first' implicitly separates it as the entry point.

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?

'Call this first' is an explicit, actionable trigger that tells the agent exactly when to invoke it. There is no when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative, so it stops short of full routing instruction, but the sequencing advice is clear.

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