usdc_get_funding_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful behavior: this is a polling endpoint, the return can include bridge legs, confirmation state, a failure reason, and a retry capability. No output schema exists, so a bit more return detail would help, but the added context is meaningful.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded first, then the polling instruction, then the alternative routing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only polling tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, how to poll, and the retry escape hatch. It leaves the exact shape of the status payload only loosely described, but between annotations and the listed status components an agent has enough to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents apiKey, requestId, accountRef, walletAddress, and sessionPrivateKey. The description's only param-related statement (requestId comes from a trade) largely restates the schema's own 'requestId returned by a USDC trade', so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (get status) and resource (a USDC trade or its auto-funding), and enumerates what the status covers: bridge legs, confirmation, failure reason. It names one sibling (usdc_retry_sell), but does not differentiate from the many adjacent USDC polling tools like usdc_wait_for_trade, usdc_get_pending_trades, or usdc_get_bridge_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Poll with the requestId a trade returned" gives clear operating context, and the retry branch routes the agent to usdc_retry_sell when a stuck sell surfaces a retry capability. It lacks an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-usdc_wait_for_trade/pending-trades rule, so no exclusion guidance is provided.

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