Hive Vault

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

Discloses the API endpoint, settlement currency, and graceful failure for upstream not being deployed, but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or data freshness. No annotations provided to shift burden.

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 with no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and key details.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete, covering purpose, endpoint, and edge case behavior. Could briefly mention response format.

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 already covers the 'window' parameter with enum and default (100% coverage). Description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema.

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?

Explicitly states it retrieves 'Top earning agents on the Hive Civilization, by attribution payout in USDC', distinguishing it from sibling tools like hive_earn_me (personal earnings) and hive_earn_register (registration).

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?

Implies usage for viewing top earners but does not provide when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., hive_earn_me for individual data) or any context about appropriate windows.

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?

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), the endpoint URL, the parameter usage, and a graceful error case ('rails not yet live'). It also asserts data authenticity ('Real Base USDC, no mock data'). However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects.

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 two sentences: the first lists the returned data, the second adds endpoint, error handling, and authenticity. Every sentence is informative and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists all returned fields. It covers the endpoint, error handling, and data source. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit prerequisites (e.g., must have registered) but that's implied by the name and sibling 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is well-documented. The description adds value by showing how the parameter is used in the URL (agent_did=<did>), providing context beyond the schema. No additional constraints or enums are needed.

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 the verb 'look up' and the resource 'caller agent's registered earn profile', listing specific data fields (lifetime + pending USDC balance, last payout tx hash, next-payout ETA). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like hive_earn_leaderboard and hive_earn_register.

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 implies usage for the caller's own profile, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or provide exclusions. The context of 'caller agent' is clear, and it mentions the endpoint and error handling.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the HTTP method (POST), the endpoint URL, and notably mentions resilience to upstream cold-start with a specific return body ('rails not yet live'). This adds behavioral insight beyond the basic action.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Key information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, endpoint, cold-start behavior, and financial details. It is sufficiently complete for a registration 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 100% and each parameter has a description. The description adds value by noting that payouts are in real Base USDC and that attribution_url is used for ranking/audit, but these are minor additions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool registers an agent for the Hive Civilization payout program, with specific details about settlement, kickback, and weekly payout. It distinguishes from siblings like hive_earn_leaderboard and hive_earn_me by focusing on registration vs querying.

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 indicates when to use (to register for payout) and provides context about settlement and kickback. It doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios, but the purpose is sufficiently clear for selecting this tool over siblings.

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 description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, detailing cryptographic steps and return values. However, it does not mention side effects, failure modes, or prerequisites, slightly reducing transparency.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the primary action, list steps, and state the output. No wasted or redundant content.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the process and expected result. Missing error handling and conditions, but overall 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context but does not provide new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already offers.

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 tool's purpose: setting up a new ZK wallet vault with guardian selection. It lists specific steps and the output, distinguishing it from sibling tools like vault.get_status or vault.initiate_recovery.

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 implies usage for creating a new vault but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide when-not guidance. The context of siblings makes it clear, but explicit guidelines are missing.

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, and the description adds valuable detail: it fetches live USDC balance via eth_call to Base L2, and returns specific state data. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs. Every clause adds value, no filler. Front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description compensates by listing all expected return values. Parameter schema covers inputs fully. The tool's role among siblings is clear.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (did and api_key). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks vault status and real USDC balance, listing specific outputs (guardian quorum state, ZK commitment prefix, recovery history, live USDC balance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault.create_vault or vault.list_guardians which serve different purposes.

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 implicitly indicates when to use (to check status and balance), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. However, the context is clear enough from the verb and resource.

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 only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which offer minimal behavioral info. The description significantly enriches understanding by detailing the multi-step guardian voting process, approval threshold, veto period, and settlement mechanism, far beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Three concise and highly informative sentences with no extraneous words. The most critical information is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, process, and settlement details.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description bears the burden of explaining behavior. It thoroughly covers the recovery initiation process and final settlement. However, it does not mention what the function returns (e.g., a recovery ID or status), which would be helpful for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description mentions biometric_hash and device_key for ZK proof verification, consistent with schema, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Start an A2A wallet recovery with guardian voting', clearly specifying the verb (initiate) and resource (wallet recovery). It distinguishes from sibling tools like vault.create_vault (creation) and vault.submit_guardian_vote (voting) by focusing on the initiation step.

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 explains the process: broadcasting to 5 guardians, requiring 3-of-5 approval, 72-hour veto window, and settlement. It implies this tool is used when recovery is needed, but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or compare with alternatives like vault.create_vault.

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, and the description adds that no auth is needed, plus details on eligibility (trust score, USDC stake). This supplements annotations well.

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, front-loaded with action, no redundant words. Efficient and well-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?

No output schema, but description lists returned fields (DID, trust score, USDC stake, uptime, eligibility). Lacks sorting/pagination info, but for a simple list tool, it's nearly 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal extra value (e.g., default min_trust), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool browses available staked guardian agents and lists specific fields. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., vault.create_vault, vault.get_status) as a read-only listing 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?

Explicitly notes 'No authentication required,' providing clear usage context. While it doesn't specify when not to use it, the sibling set offers no alternative list tool, making this guidance sufficient.

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 show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: includes ZK proof verification and triggers automatic recovery after threshold approval. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds value without being verbose.

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 explains the voting process and threshold, but lacks details about the response format or prerequisites (e.g., must have a recovery initiated). Adequate but could be more 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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'Submit a guardian yes/no vote on a pending recovery request.' It specifies the verb (submit) and resource (vote on recovery request), and distinguishes from siblings like vault.initiate_recovery and vault.list_guardians.

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 indicates it is 'Called by authorized guardian agents' and explains the context: 'Includes ZK proof verification. Once 3-of-5 guardians approve, recovery proceeds automatically.' It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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