Reward token cards and retention scenarios

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds meaningful operational limits: market data is fetched from Dexscreener only for token addresses, includeMarket=false disables it, research claims are never verified, and no execution guarantees are made. This is far more than the annotations convey.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core comparison purpose before layering in retention mode specifics, external data behavior, and limitations. Every sentence adds information without repeating the schema or annotations.

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 complex 9-parameter tool, the description covers the most important execution-relevant semantics, external data dependencies, research-note handling, and explicit non-guarantees, while an output schema covers result expectations. A small gap remains around preferredTokens and maxRewardTokens behavior, but the description is largely complete and actionable.

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?

With only 22% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining key parameter meaning: keepBps applies to each selected token's units, includeMarket=false skips Dexscreener, researchNotes are unverified client claims, and selected token addresses are retained in HOLD_SELECTED/MIXED modes. It does not clarify slippageBps, maxRewardTokens, or preferredTokens, so it is not a full substitute for schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: comparing 1–3 independent full-veNFT reward allocations across USDC, HOLD_SELECTED, and MIXED modes. The title and details about retention scenarios clearly separate this from sibling tools like wallet rewards or voting incentives.

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 clear context for when to call this tool and what it is for, including mode-specific behavior, external Dexscreener fetching, and explicit non-goals such as 'no net-after-gas, guaranteed sellability, growth score or execution.' It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use them, so it stops short of a 5.

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