acp_claim_refund

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partially disclosed. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the obvious action, such as prerequisites, irreversibility, or side effects. It does not disclose any meaningful behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide.

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 front-loads the action. It contains no redundant words and effectively states the tool's purpose without fluff.

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 tool is simple with only two scalar parameters, no output schema, and annotations provide safety hints. However, the description omits important contextual cues such as when the refund can be claimed (e.g., after job completion) or what happens if no budget remains. Given the lack of output schema and the need for operational context, the description is only minimally 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 100%, with clear descriptions for both jobId and chainId. The description itself does not add extra meaning to the parameters, but since the schema already fully documents them, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description's reference to 'job' aligns with the jobId parameter but adds no additional detail.

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 with a specific verb ('Claim') and resource ('remaining budget for a Virtuals ACPRouter job'). It distinguishes from siblings like acp_get_job or acp_complete_job by focusing on the refund/claim action. Mentioning the underlying method 'claimBudget' adds specificity.

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 the context (claiming unspent budget from a job) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like acp_get_job or acp_reject_job. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references. The usage scenario is implied, not directly guided.

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