Search Opire rewards

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/open-world profile, and the description adds real behavioral context: sort order (amount descending, unknown amounts last, then newest first) and the important disclosure that the upstream API ignores query parameters so keyword and amount filtering happen locally. It does not say whether 'limit' is applied upstream or locally, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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 most decision-relevant facts (source and ordering) are front-loaded before the local-filtering caveat.

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, so the description carries the burden of return-value context, and it only says the API returns 'a small list' without describing a reward's fields. Everything else an agent needs to call it correctly — source, ordering, local filtering — is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3; each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the general statement that keyword and amount filtering is local, plus the ordering rule that explains why unknown-amount items fall last, without per-parameter 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List open rewards from Opire') with scope and ordering, and names the upstream source (api.opire.dev), which implicitly separates it from the GitHub-oriented siblings. It never explicitly contrasts itself with search_bounties or search_github_bounties, so sibling differentiation is by implication only.

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?

Usage is implied by the named source: use this to search Opire rewards. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement nor any pointer to the sibling tools that cover other sources, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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