Epoch voting incentives and vote allocation scenarios

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds value by detailing the 'at one block' snapshot, the independence of each pool's hypothetical allocation, and the explicit disclaimer that no ownership/eligibility or guaranteed payout is claimed. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core read action, then the optional estimation, then disclaimers. No fluff; each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and annotations cover safety. However, the description does not explain the maxRewardTokens parameter, and it does not mention how the block is chosen (though it says 'at one block'). For a tool with this complexity, the missing parameter semantics is a notable gap, so it's not fully complete.

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 only 25% (only additionalVoteRaw has a description). The description text clarifies pools and veNFTs (tokenIds) and hypothetical votes (additionalVoteRaw), but maxRewardTokens is not explained anywhere. The description partially compensates for the low schema coverage but leaves a gap.

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 reads deposited bribes and fees for 1-8 explicit pools at a specific block, and optionally estimates rewards for additional votes or full allocation of veNFTs. It is specific about the action, resource, and scope, and the disclaimers (no ownership/eligibility, no APR) help differentiate it from wallet-focused siblings.

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 gives clear context on what the tool does (read bribes/fees and estimate hypothetical rewards) but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like aerodrome_voting_position or aerodrome_wallet_rewards. It implies usage for scenario analysis but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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