Aerodrome wallet rewards

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral scope beyond that: rewards are claimable, coverage is limited to configured veNFT current votes and explicitly configured gauges, and historical pools are deliberately skipped — a meaningful data-coverage disclosure.

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, zero filler, and the primary scope statement is front-loaded before the exclusion. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description adequately covers what is returned, so return-value explanation is not required. The gap is parameter behavior: with two undocumented, non-obvious parameters and no annotations covering them, the definition is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 0% and neither parameter is mentioned in the description. maxItems (pagination/limit, 1-200, default 100) and includeZero (whether zero-value rewards are returned) are left entirely unexplained, and the description does nothing to compensate for that 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and two concrete resources (claimable voting rewards for configured veNFT current votes, LP rewards for explicitly configured gauges), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not name or contrast with any sibling such as aerodrome_voting_position or aerodrome_wallet_report, so the 5-level sibling differentiation is missing.

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 clause 'Historical vote pools are intentionally not scanned' implies a usage boundary and tells the agent this is not a historical/backfill query. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit 'use this when X, use Y when Z' routing, so usage is only implied.

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