claim_payout

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the action but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, failure conditions, or authentication requirements. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a succinct single sentence (11 words) with no redundancy, front-loading the key action and resource.

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 simple claim action with one parameter, the description is partially adequate but lacks details on return value or failure modes, especially given no output schema. It covers the precondition but not the postcondition.

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% for the single parameter 'contest_id', which has a brief schema description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Claim'), the resource ('USDC payout'), and the condition ('completed contest where you placed in the money'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'enter_contest' or 'get_results'.

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?

Implies usage only after contest completion and being in the money, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use/not-use or mention alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons with siblings.

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