loot_claim_rails

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses the simulation-first flow ('simulated first, only paying days are sent'), the version incompatibility (no v3 cashback lane on v4), and the credential prerequisite (LOOT_AGENT_PRIVATE_KEY). It omits failure and reversibility semantics, but meaningful behavioral context is disclosed.

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?

A compact single paragraph that is front-loaded with purpose, then enumerates the lanes, then closes with version and auth notes. Every clause earns its place and there is no wasted wording, though the content is dense enough that a reader must parse it carefully.

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 1-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the claim lanes, the simulation/paying-day filter, the version incompatibility, and the required credential. Missing are return-value semantics and failure behavior, but against the tool's low complexity these are minor gaps.

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% for the sole parameter days_back, including its range (1–30) and default (5), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only loosely echoes the parameter via 'recent closed daily prize boards' and adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Claim') with a scoped resource ('from the trader rails') and enumerates the exact lanes: closed daily prize boards, the 12h rank drip, and season promo keys. The v3/v4 note adds useful version-specific context. It's clear and distinctive, though it never explicitly contrasts with closely named siblings like loot_claim_keys and loot_claim_loot.

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 'everything this wallet can' phrasing implies a catch-all aggregator, which gives implicit when-to-use guidance. However, no alternative is named and no when-not condition is stated; with siblings loot_claim_keys and loot_claim_loot present, an agent gets no explicit direction on when to prefer a narrower claims tool over this aggregate.

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