Live ACP signaling (info.acps)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond this: it notes that the query hits a public node and that the result is empty when no ACP vote is in progress. This helps the agent understand the real-time nature and the edge case, adding value beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, then immediately covers the network option and the empty-result caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easily skimmable.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the network choices, the empty behavior, and implicitly the data being returned. Annotations handle safety, and there are no unresolved ambiguities for an agent to call this correctly.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions 'mainnet or fuji', which aligns with the network enum, thereby clarifying the sole parameter. It also implies the parameter is optional by focusing on the query action. This is sufficient for the single, simple parameter, and the description adds meaning beyond the raw enum.

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 states a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('public node's info.acps') and clearly describes what it returns (ACPs currently being signaled with supported/objected weight). It also specifies the networks. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like avax_acp_list or avax_acp_lookup, so while the purpose is clear, it relies on the agent to infer the distinction.

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 provides some usage context: it mentions the network selection and clarifies the empty result when no vote is in progress. It does not, however, state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use case is implied but not contrasted with sibling ACP tools.

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