paper_faucet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides substantial context: paper mode only, funds are simulated and worthless, and the tool does not exist in live mode. It still leaves operational gaps such as idempotency, rate limits, or error behavior, but the mode and value semantics are clearly disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scope, then efficiently adds the paper-mode constraint and live-mode distinction. Every sentence contributes useful context without redundancy.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical mode, purpose, and sequencing context. It does not explain return values or faucet limits, but with 83% schema coverage and no output schema, it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 83%, so the input schema already documents nearly all parameters, including amount, symbol, decimals, chain, and token_address. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that; baseline 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Credit your paper trader with PLAY funds (the sandbox faucet).' It also scopes the action clearly with 'Paper mode only' and distinguishes it from live-mode onchain funding, making the tool's purpose unmistakable despite not naming sibling tools directly.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: paper mode, as the signup/funding step before trading. It also states when it does not apply: live mode. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool for live funding, so it stops short of full 5-level routing guidance.

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