loot_claim_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that claims are simulated first and only paying claims are sent, uses fixed gas per family, reads granted counts from receipts, and requires LOOT_AGENT_PRIVATE_KEY. This is substantial transparency, though it omits failure handling and return values, which are minor gaps for a transaction tool.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the simulation behavior, gas/receipt details, and auth requirement. Every sentence adds necessary information without filler.

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 claim execution and requirements but lacks an explanation of the output format, error handling, or prerequisite state checks (e.g., how to verify claimability). Since there is no output schema, an agent does not know what the function returns or how to interpret success/failure. This is a notable gap for a transaction-relevant tool.

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 schema defines 'token' with an address pattern and the description only adds 'for a token', clarifying the operation's target. It does not explain how to validate the token, prerequisites, or relation to other tools. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more; it provides minimal added value beyond the schema's pattern.

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 identifies the action ('claim') and the resource ('every key family'), listing specific types (universal drip, streak, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like loot_claim_loot and loot_claim_rails by focusing exclusively on keys. The simulation behavior is stated upfront, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 this is the tool for claiming keys, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives like loot_claim_loot or loot_claim_rails, leaving the routing to inference. The context is clear for the key-claim scenario, but exclusions are absent.

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