get_aipou_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Does not reveal private keys or full receipt payloads', adding security context. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention authentication requirements or other behavioral aspects.

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 concise sentences. The first describes the outputs, the second adds a safety note. No waste. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main outputs and a caveat. However, it lacks details about the output format, possible error states (e.g., wallet not found), and edge cases, which would help an agent fully understand the response.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds meaning by listing the types of data returned (receipts, balance), which is useful beyond the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools.

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 uses specific verbs ('Show') and resources ('recorded, pending, and already claimed AIPOU receipts', 'farming wallet's on-chain AIPOU balance'). It clearly states what the tool outputs, but does not differentiate from sibling tools such as get_aipou_contract or get_aipou_identity, which could be ambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context. No explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations are given.

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