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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals key traits: no immediate credit, bounded and non-transferable credit, and conditional release only if the same wallet later settles the capability. This is useful, though it doesn't mention if the pledge is irreversible or if it has other 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, front-loaded with 'Free market-signal pledge,' and every clause adds value. It is concise without sacrificing key behavioral 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?

For a tool with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the pledge's purpose and credit behavior. It lacks guidance on return values or failure conditions, but these are less critical for a simple declarative 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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents wallet and capability thoroughly. The description adds some context (e.g., 'same wallet' reinforces the wallet parameter) but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score.

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 it is a market-signal pledge for declaring a capability you would pay for, with a specific conditional credit mechanism. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chain_snapshot or token_metadata, which have 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when to avoid it. It implies a usage for signaling demand but offers no guidance on alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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