spending_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the behavioral burden. It only states 'Return,' implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose what 'current session' means, whether data is live, or if there are any side effects. Some transparency but not rich detail.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word contributes to the description.

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 no-parameter read operation, the description covers the key outputs (summary, budget caps, history) but does not specify output structure or clarify session semantics. Since no output schema exists, a little more detail could be added, but it is reasonably complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema (empty object) is fully covered. With no parameters, the description has nothing to add; baseline 4 applies per the rubric.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource (current session's USDC spending summary, budget caps, history), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like check_balance or transfer tools.

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 a session spending summary or history is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternative tools. The context is clear, 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.