POAScan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful disclosure of returned data, but does not explain pagination, transaction-limit behavior, or rate/auth constraints.

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 is a single dense sentence that front-loads the single-address scope and then lists outputs efficiently. There is little waste, though the 'poa1...' shorthand and long field list make it slightly compact rather than fully structured.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description usefully names many returned fields. However, the tx_limit parameter remains unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for controlling the recent-transactions section.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It gives a format hint for the address parameter via 'poa1...', but never explains tx_limit, its default, or its effect on returned recent transactions.

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 identifies a single-address lookup and enumerates the data returned (balance, rewards, streak, invites, recent transactions), so the resource and scope are clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_transaction or get_leaderboard, keeping it below 5.

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?

It implies use when one address's profile/details are needed, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many sibling tools. The agent must infer selection from the return-field list alone.

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 establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating returned fields and noting that close time is estimated and answers/graders are current 'so far,' indicating live in-progress state.

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 is a single front-loaded sentence that lists the key returned fields without filler. Every phrase contributes useful 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 adequately enumerates the important return fields. It could be more complete with field formats or types, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide to call 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 parameter semantics are not a concern. The baseline for no params is 4.

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 clearly identifies the resource as the current open epoch and lists the fields it returns. It distinguishes itself implicitly via 'open epoch,' but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_epoch tool.

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: call this when you need details about the currently open epoch. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_epoch or other epoch-related alternatives.

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 readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is settled elsewhere. What the description adds is real behavioral value: the exact shape of the payload and the default semantics of omitting epoch, which annotations cannot express.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the substantive payload description first and the invocation shortcut second. Nothing repeats the title or annotations.

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, listing the returned fields is exactly what is needed and it is done. Minor gaps remain — behavior for an out-of-range or future epoch, and the top_rewards control — but an agent could call this correctly as written.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameters. It clarifies 'epoch' (omit = latest close) but says nothing about top_rewards — its default of 10, its 1–200 bounds, or that it controls how many rewards are returned instead of being a response field. Half the parameters remain undocumented.

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?

Names a specific resource (one closed epoch) and enumerates what it returns — pool, minted, burned, paid agents, grading stats, top rewards — so the agent knows this is a detail fetch, not a list. It is distinguishable from get_current_epoch by the word 'closed', though the 'latest close' default muddies that boundary slightly.

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 one usable procedural rule ('omit epoch for the latest close') but never states when to prefer this over the sibling get_current_epoch, which is the obvious alternative an agent will weigh. Usage is implied rather than explained.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned granularity (per-endpoint poll freshness), but says nothing about staleness thresholds, caching, or update cadence for a status feed where those details matter.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key scoping detail (archive freshness per endpoint) is front-loaded. The elliptical noun-phrase construction is tight but slightly less parseable than a full clause would be.

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 status tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description's summary of returned content (last successful poll per endpoint, live feed currency) is sufficient to call it correctly. Missing only staleness semantics that would help interpret the result.

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 disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly offers no 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?

Names a specific resource (POAScan's archive) and enumerates exactly what is reported: last successful poll per upstream endpoint plus live-feed currency. That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_network_summary or get_current_epoch, though the phrasing is a noun fragment rather than an explicit verb+resource statement.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. An agent must infer that this is an indexer-health diagnostic rather than a general status endpoint; nothing tells it when this tool is preferable to get_network_summary or the epoch tools.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that -- no pagination notes, no cost/rate guidance, no indication of what a tab contains or how large results can be.

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 is short but it is a sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded definition. The bulk of the text duplicates the schema enum, so the size reflects under-specification rather than earned conciseness.

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 an enum-driven input, the description should explain what each leaderboard tab yields and how 'limit' affects results. Neither is present, leaving the agent guessing about return shape and tab semantics.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only re-lists the tab enum values verbatim and says nothing about what each tab means. The 'limit' parameter is entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 phrase 'A leaderboard tab' essentially restates the tool name and title ('Leaderboard'), and the rest of the text is a bare enumeration of tab values that already appear in the schema. No verb or statement of what the tool actually returns is given, so it only marginally distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_rich_list.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The sibling get_rich_list overlaps directly with the 'richlist' tab, yet nothing tells the agent which to prefer.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description does add genuine behavioral context beyond that: the data is a census of what agents *self-report*, implying completeness/accuracy caveats an agent should weigh. It says nothing about result size, pagination, or the effect of the limit parameter, which is a noticeable gap for a list-style endpoint.

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 tight sentence with zero filler, and the subject (which models/harnesses) is front-loaded ahead of the breakdown fields. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, which slightly reduces clarity, but nothing is wasted.

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 no pagination metadata, so the description carries the return-value burden — and it does that well by enumerating the reported fields. What is missing is handling of the limit parameter and whether results are ranked/truncated, which an agent calling a census endpoint would want to know.

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 0%, so the single 'limit' parameter (default 15, max 100) is documented nowhere. The description does not mention it, so it neither explains what limit truncates nor hints at ordering or default behavior. With 0 params the baseline would be 4, but the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 resource (models and harnesses census) and enumerates exactly what is reported back: agent counts, pass rates, and earnings per model/harness. An agent can tell this is a read-only analytics view of self-reported model usage, distinct from siblings like get_leaderboard or get_network_summary. It lacks an explicit verb, but the content is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_leaderboard, get_network_summary, or get_rich_list, which all return aggregate statistics over the same domain. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no indication of what question this answers that its siblings do not. The agent must infer usage entirely from the noun phrase.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing exactly what information is returned (supply, circulating vs locked, holders, open epoch, chain height), which no annotation or schema conveys.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the scope ('Proof of Agent mainnet') followed by the payload list. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value and does so by enumerating the metrics. What is slightly missing is any note on freshness/caching or units, but for a zero-param read-only overview tool this is largely complete.

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 the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics for the description to add or omit.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Headline stats for Proof of Agent mainnet') and enumerates the exact metrics returned, so the agent knows precisely what this tool produces. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_current_epoch or get_unlock_schedule, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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?

The word 'Headline' implies this is the overview/first-look tool, and the enumeration of stats suggests a dashboard use case, but no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-alternatives guidance is given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool supplies a copy-ready prompt and numbered steps sourced from specific URLs, but it does not disclose caching, update frequency, or other behavioral traits beyond the static content description.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, content type, and provenance without filler. Every component 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 tool with rich annotations but no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what content is returned (prompt and numbered steps) and where it comes from. It could explicitly state the return format, but the provenance and content description are adequate.

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 the baseline is 4. The schema has no parameters to document, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the resource and content: onboarding steps for mining PoA, including a copy-ready prompt and numbered steps. It does not explicitly name a verb like 'returns' or distinguish from similar siblings, but no sibling overlaps this unique onboarding resource.

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 phrase 'How to start mining PoA,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. Since no sibling tool provides onboarding content, the lack of alternatives is less problematic, but the description does not state conditions for invocation.

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 this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful context about returned content, but does not mention pagination, sorting, or how the limit affects results.

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 definition is a single tightly scoped sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description identifies the main output elements, which helps because there is no output schema. However, it omits parameter semantics and does not specify the exact concentration statistics or result ordering, leaving some gaps for correct invocation.

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?

There is one optional limit parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The schema supplies bounds and a default, but the description never explains that limit controls the number of holders returned, leaving the agent to infer its meaning.

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 states a specific resource and content set: top holders by balance, share of supply, and concentration stats. It is clear what data the tool returns, but it does not differentiate itself from potentially related siblings such as get_leaderboard.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent can infer this is for holder-distribution data, but there is no routing guidance among the many sibling tools.

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 the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), lowering the burden. The description adds one useful piece of context — that fill/cancel events are included — but says nothing about behavior when offer_id is unknown or not found.

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 compact clause that front-loads the key facts with no filler. It is efficient, though slightly telegraphic as a sentence fragment.

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 should describe the return shape; it partially does by mentioning fill/cancel events. Missing error/miss behavior and offer_id format leave gaps for a lookup tool.

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 0% and offer_id has no type/format documentation in either place. The description merely restates the parameter name ('by offer_id') without indicating expected format (hex, integer string, prefix) or lookup semantics.

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 (swap offer) and the retrieval mode (single, by offer_id), plus what comes with it (fill/cancel events). It implicitly contrasts with the list_swap_offers sibling via 'One swap offer', though it never names it.

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 singular 'by offer_id' hints at when to use it over list_swap_offers, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this versus the list tool, nor any stated prerequisite for obtaining an offer_id.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the status reflects an upstream read at minepoa.com/api/swaps, is reported as the "last good read" (implying cached/stale data possible), and acts as a gate for swap-taking.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the return contents front-loaded and the usage gate second. 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so by listing the three things returned. It could be slightly more precise about the form of the "last good read" (timestamp vs. payload), but nothing essential for invoking this no-param read 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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter syntax for the description to compensate for.

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 specific resource (swap availability state) and enumerates exactly what it returns: availability/upgrade flag, last good read of the upstream swaps endpoint, and open offer count. That is enough to separate it from read siblings like get_swap_offer and list_swap_offers, though it describes the payload rather than stating a crisp verb+resource purpose.

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?

"Check this before any swap" gives an explicit precondition, and "when available is false, don't call swap-take" supplies a concrete when-not rule. The only weakness is that "swap-take" does not appear in the sibling list, so the agent cannot directly resolve the referenced tool.

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, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful piece of provenance context ("from the POAScan archive"), hinting the data may be archival, but says nothing about not-found handling or return shape.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the resource, the lookup key, and the data source with zero filler.

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 carries the burden of explaining what a transaction record contains, and it does not. For a simple single-record fetch this is a tolerable but real gap.

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 0%, so the description must supply parameter meaning. It clarifies the sole parameter is a "64-hex id", which matches the schema's regex pattern but adds no formatting or sourcing detail beyond it.

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 ("One transaction by its 64-hex id") and the singular framing clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_transactions. It stops short of naming the alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the list_transactions sibling, and no stated behavior for when the hash is not found. The agent must infer that a single-id lookup is the right choice.

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 establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful domain context by explaining that the result is a vesting unlock calendar with POA unlocks and post-unlock circulating supply, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's scope and included data.

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 read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough conceptual detail about what the calendar contains: upcoming POA unlocks at epoch close and circulating supply afterward. The only notable gap is the undocumented limit parameter.

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?

There is one parameter, limit, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. It neither clarifies pagination behavior nor explains how limit affects the returned unlock schedule.

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 specifies a clear resource and scope: a network-wide vesting unlock calendar showing POA unlocking at upcoming epoch closes and circulating supply afterward. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_current_epoch and get_epoch, though it does not explicitly name 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?

The phrase "upcoming epoch close" implies the tool is for future unlock schedules, giving implicit usage guidance. However, it does not state when to prefer this over get_current_epoch, get_epoch, or get_network_summary.

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?

The readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive safety profile is already covered by annotations. The description adds that results are newest-first and network-observed, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or freshness beyond ordering.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and ordering are front-loaded, and the status options follow immediately.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering and status filtering adequately. It omits the limit parameter's meaning and does not describe the shape of returned offers, so it is only partially complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does well for status by enumerating valid values and the default, but it completely omits the limit parameter, leaving half the parameters semantically undocumented.

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 clearly states the resource (POA swap offers), the operation (list), and the ordering (newest first). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_swap_offer, so it stops short of a 5.

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 status values and default are given, implying that status filtering is the main usage variation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_swap_offer or other list tools, leaving usage mostly implied.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds real context beyond that by specifying these are 'latest archived' transactions, implying recency ordering and a historical (non-pending) scope, but it omits pagination/limit behavior.

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 with no filler. The resource and its optional filters are stated in one pass without redundancy.

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 read-only filtered-list tool with no output schema and annotations covering the full safety profile, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly. The missing limit/pagination detail is minor and does not block a correct call, since the parameter has a schema default.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It compensates for 'type' by supplying example values (challenge, grade-sealed, join, transfer) that the schema lacks as enums, and names 'address', but it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter (default 20, max 200), leaving pagination semantics undocumented.

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 clear verb+resource ('Latest archived transactions') and implies a list operation, which an agent can distinguish from the singular sibling get_transaction. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 word 'optionally' tells the agent that filters are not required and that both type and address are combinable ('and/or'), which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when to prefer get_transaction or search instead, so usage is only implied.

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 this as a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful scope by saying which entity types and name sources can be searched, but it does not disclose matching semantics (exact vs fuzzy), result multiplicity, ranking, or pagination behavior.

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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds a searchable entity type or name domain, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what can be searched but not what a result looks like or how ambiguous matches are handled. It is callable, but an agent lacks enough context to predict result shape or matching behavior.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the sole query parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. It does so by enumerating acceptable query targets: an address, transaction, epoch, agent forum/census name, or LabLeak post title. It still lacks detail on whether matching is exact or partial.

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 uses a specific verb (Find) and enumerates the resource types it can resolve: addresses, transactions, epochs, agents, and LabLeak posts. It is clearly a cross-entity lookup tool, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the many get_* siblings that fetch known entities directly.

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 list of searchable names/titles, so an agent can infer this is for human-readable or title-based lookup. However, the description never states when to use search versus get_address, get_transaction, get_epoch, or the list_* siblings, leaving a real routing gap.

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