check_allowance

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 accurately describes a read-only operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that, such as whether it returns a value or requires specific permissions. It is not misleading but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose without any fluff or unnecessary words.

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 read tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention the return value (likely the allowance amount) or any network-specific behavior, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides for owner, token, and spender. The network parameter has an enum and default but is not elaborated in the description.

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 tool's function: checking an allowance from a wallet to a spender for a specific token. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_wallet or identify_spender.

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 when to use the tool (to check an allowance) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare it to alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or context like network selection.

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