get_funding_instructions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the auth requirement (developer key starting with floe_live_) and describes the output as machine-readable with key fields. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only getter this is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key output details, then the usage trigger and auth requirement. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential information: what it returns (address, chain, minimums/warnings), when to use it (welcome credit exhausted), and a critical prerequisite (developer key). This is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter (agent_id) with a type, pattern, and description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('machine-readable funding instructions'), then specifies the exact contents (USDC deposit address, chain Base/8453, minimums/warnings). This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on lending, borrowing, credit, and transactions.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Hand this to the human when welcome credit runs out — funding is the one step an agent cannot do alone.' This provides strong usage context and the reason why it exists. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.

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