x402_lp_farm_claim

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that it is a 1-transaction group, has a payment requirement, incurs a fee, and requires local signing. It does not explicitly describe the outcome (rewards transferred to the sender) or the return value, but the function name partially covers this.

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 compact and information-dense, covering cost, transaction type, and workflow in two sentences. However, the use of abbreviations like 'appl' and the telegraphic style reduce readability, though no words are wasted.

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?

The tool appears to be a transaction builder that requires signing and submission via a separate tool. The description covers the workflow and costs but does not define the output (likely a signed transaction) or how to acquire a `farmingId`, leaving some gaps given the absence of an output schema.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (address, uint64), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra context about how to obtain `farmingId` or what `sender` must be, so it does not exceed the schema.

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 identifies this as a claim operation on an LP farm via the `claimRewards()` app call, distinguishing it from stake/unstake siblings. The purpose is clear despite the heavy use of technical shorthand.

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 instructs the user to sign with their own wallet and then call the submit tool, providing a clear workflow. It includes cost details (PAID $0.01 USDC, flat fee 0.002 ALGO), but does not explicitly contrast with stake/unstake or explain when claiming is appropriate.

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