claim_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior beyond the schema: the polling pattern, the backed_up gate, and the critical rule that the deposit address is returned only after the 12-word backup is confirmed. It stops short of covering auth requirements or the full return shape (no output schema exists).

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then the security constraint. No sentence is redundant and each adds distinct 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?

For a polling status tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: when to call, the terminating condition, and the key state-dependent return value. It does not fully enumerate the response fields, but the essential gating behavior 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single trader_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Check) and resource (claim-ceremony progress for this trader's wallet), and ties it to a concrete state flag (backed_up). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like provision_wallet and swap_status without opening any schema.

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 states the trigger (poll after provision_wallet) and the stopping condition (until backed_up is true), plus a hard prohibition on revealing the deposit address early. This is precise when-to-use guidance rather than inference.

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