claim_ndat

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

No annotations exist, but description fully discloses behavior: returns signature/deadline/amount/verification object, MCP is read-only while on-chain claim is mutating. No contradictions.

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?

Description is well-structured with front-loaded purpose, usage guidelines, returns, and side effects. Slightly verbose but each sentence is informative. Could be tightened slightly.

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?

Given no output schema, description fully explains return values and the two-phase nature (MCP read-only vs on-chain mutation). Provides sufficient context for safe invocation.

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% and description adds value beyond schema: specifies wallet format (0x + 40 hex chars on Base) and explains that omitting amount claims all pending_ndat.

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?

Description clearly states verb (build), resource (ECDSA-signed claim payload to withdraw NDAT), and context (on Base). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying when to use and not use, e.g., 'not when checking balance'.

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'NOT WHEN' conditions are provided, referencing get_agent_balance balance and register_nattswap_reward as alternatives. This gives clear decision criteria.

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