get_aipou_status

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it may read Base via RPC but never signs/submits transactions, changes receipts, reveals private keys, or returns full receipt payloads. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify side-effect-free and privacy-preserving behavior, with no contradictions.

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 fluff. The first sentence front-loads the primary use case and the exclusion of settlement tools; the second packs a dense but well-organized list of return fields and behavioral constraints. 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 must explain what is returned, and it does: a JSON summary of receipt counts, pending AIPOU, settlement state, and wallet balance. It also clarifies what it does NOT return (full receipt payloads) and its network access. For a zero-arg read-only tool, this is complete and actionable.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100%). Per the rubric, baseline is 4 for 0 params. The description doesn't need to reference parameters since none exist; it focuses on the output, which is appropriate here.

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: a read-only status checker for pending, claimed, and wallet-balance information. It lists the specific data returned (receipt counts, pending AIPOU, settlement state, wallet balance) and distinguishes it from settlement tools, making it unmistakable among its siblings.

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 says 'Use this first when the user asks for pending, claimed, or wallet-balance information' and tells when NOT to use settlement tools ('only after an explicit claim request'). This provides unambiguous routing guidance and prevents misuse.

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