acp_fund_job

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (openWorldHint, destructiveHint) by disclosing that it automatically checks allowance, approves ERC-20 if needed, and creates a payable memo escrow. This informs the agent about side effects and state changes.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Fund a Virtuals ACPRouter job') and then efficiently packs essential behavioral details without unnecessary words.

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 description covers the main action, side effects, and escrow creation, making the tool understandable. However, with no output schema, it does not mention the return value (e.g., transaction hash or job status), which is a useful detail for a funding operation. This is a minor gap.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including units for amount. The description adds no parameter-specific details but gives contextual background on the funding flow. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fund' with a clear resource 'Virtuals ACPRouter job' and outlines the process (checks allowance, approves ERC-20, creates escrow). This distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like erc8183_fund_job.

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool (to fund a Virtuals ACPRouter job) by naming the protocol and job type. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like erc8183_fund_job, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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