tool_reputation_by_stake

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

Without annotations, the description adds some transparency by listing factors combined (stake size, slash history, membership duration) and return fields (score, grade, breakdown). However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or has side effects.

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 and an args line with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and the factors used. Minor gap: no details on the breakdown structure.

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 description explains 'agent_id' as 'Agent identifier to evaluate', adding context beyond the schema title. With 0% schema description coverage, this is helpful, but still lacks format or examples.

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 action 'Get' and the resource 'stake-weighted reputation score', with a specific range (0-100). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on reputation rather than disputes, slashing, or leaderboard.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or compare to siblings like tool_stake_leaderboard, which could provide raw stake data.

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