gm_agent_last_gm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does it well: it discloses the read-only nature, the lack of an API key requirement, and the special sentinel value '0 = never.' This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations beyond the raw schema.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the exact function, source contract, output semantic, and access requirement. Every word contributes information, with no filler or 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?

This is a simple, single-parameter, read-only tool. The description covers the return value, the zero-case behavior, the data source, and the lack of authentication requirements. Nothing an agent needs to correctly call this tool is missing.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, describing 'address' as the wallet address to check. The description adds the semantic of 'most recent agent GM' but does not add new parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 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: it invokes the raw lastGM(address) function from DailyAgentGM on gm.ink and explains the output as the wallet's most recent agent GM timestamp. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools.

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 implies usage context by stating 'Read-only, no key needed,' which tells the agent that no authentication is required and that this is a safe query. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like gm_agent_gm or gm_agent_status, so usage guidance is only implied.

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