firestarter_market_earnings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the scope is restricted to markets the user owns, and the output includes earnings pending vs paid out and transaction counts. It does not describe auth, response structure, or edge cases, but with annotations present this is acceptable.

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 short and mostly front-loaded, but the phrase 'override earnings pending vs paid out' is awkward and likely a typo for 'overview'. It does not parse cleanly, which hurts clarity. Aside from that, every sentence earns its place.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the key information an agent needs: the target resource, the data categories, and the typical user trigger. It does not spell out exact return field names, but the description names enough to make invocation and interpretation feasible.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters. With no params, the baseline is 4; the description appropriately focuses on the tool's output rather than inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('Show'), a clear resource ('earnings of the markets you own'), and enumerates the data categories shown (pending vs paid out, transaction counts). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like my_markets and payouts, though it does not explicitly name them. The odd 'override' phrasing slightly reduces clarity.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when a community owner asks how much they have earned or wants their attribution dashboard. It does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over unrelated siblings.

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