get_vault_proof

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what the tool returns but lacks details on side effects, authentication, or rate limits. Being a read-only getter, it is minimally adequate.

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 convey the key output and purpose with no wasted words. The important information is front-loaded.

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 and no parameters, the description explains what the tool returns (vault address, public URLs, signed cycle hash). It is sufficient for a simple getter but could mention output format or use case more explicitly.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage. The description does not need to add parameter info; it appropriately focuses on the output. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 states the tool provides on-chain vault address, public URLs, and signed cycle hash for verifying BTC trades. It distinguishes from sibling tools that have different purposes, though the phrasing is informal.

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 use when verifying live BTC trades but does not explicitly state when to avoid or mention alternatives. While straightforward due to no parameters, more explicit guidance would improve score.

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