register_nattswap_reward

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses side effects: 'mutating reward ledger for agentAddress'. Also mentions free status. Could include more about idempotency or rate limits, but for a simple reward registration, this is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main action. Efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points for USE/NOT USE) to improve readability. Still very concise and informative.

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 the simple tool with two plain parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: when to use, what it returns (credits_awarded, ndat_credited, founder_multiplier flags), and side effects. Sibling tools list aids decision-making.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the input schema's property descriptions. No extra value provided.

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?

Clearly states the action: register a completed on-chain swap transaction to credit NDAT rewards and decision core quota credits. Uses specific verb 'register' and resource 'swap tx to credit rewards+quota'. Distinguishes from siblings by referencing swap_via_nattswap, swap_quote, get_agent_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?

Explicitly tells when to use (swap confirmed on-chain) and when not to use (only quoting or checking balance). Also mentions that it is free at MCP, providing usage context.

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