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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the idempotency-like constraint (one answer per wallet per question) and that answers are persisted for aggregate insights, but it omits whether the answer is final/immutable, whether submission requires a signed transaction or gas, and whether any return value or confirmation is produced.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the constraint and persistence note.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the one-answer constraint but leaves important agent-facing questions unanswered: what the response looks like, whether the submission is on-chain or off-chain, and whether an answer can be changed.

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 67%; 'wallet' and 'question_id' have descriptions in the schema, while 'answer' has only a maxLength. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g. expected answer format, allowed values, or where the question_id comes from), so it does not compensate for the gap.

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 verb and resource ('Answer today's rotating Swarm Signal market question'), so an agent can immediately tell what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'leave_intel', which could be a similar submission-style tool, so it falls 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?

Usage is implied by 'today's rotating ... question', and the one-answer-per-wallet constraint is stated. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no mention of what happens if the question was already answered, and no guidance on how to obtain the question_id.

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