Comfy creator fee ledger

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), the description discloses that wallet-only scans cover at most 100 indexed tokens by ascending address, use eight pool workers, have a 20-second budget, report failed pools and completeness, and never return a lifetime total. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a read tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the limitations follow in a dense second sentence. It is efficient and information-rich, though the second sentence is long and packs several independent constraints together.

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, so the description usefully names the returned fee categories and the pending projection. It also explains scoping, completeness reporting, and a key limitation (never a lifetime total). It is nearly complete, but lacks detail on the response shape and on the behavior when both parameters are supplied or when neither is supplied.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does add meaning: it explains that token, wallet, or both may be supplied, that wallet selection uses current bound recipients, and that wallet-only scans have specific scoping and performance behavior. It omits what happens if neither parameter is supplied and does not explicitly state the address format, which the schema pattern covers.

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 read operation over FeeSplitter fee categories (claimable, earned, claimed, reassigned) plus a pending next-sweep projection. It clearly describes the resource and distinguishes the result from a lifetime total, though it does not explicitly compare itself to any sibling 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?

It tells the agent to supply token, wallet, or both, and explains that wallet selection uses current bound recipients. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives, and the wallet-only scan constraints are behavioral limits rather than selection guidance.

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