tax_params

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns parameters, gives the current value of burn_tax_rate (0.015), and specifies the gas-price table. It also corrects a common route error by explicitly noting the route is /terra/tax/v1beta1/params, which is behavioral context that prevents misrouting. It doesn't describe data format or error behavior, but for a read-only param fetch, this is adequate.

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: one sentence that packs the resource, fields, and a critical route correction. No fluff, and the most distinguishing detail (route) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick parsing.

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 is simple (no params, no output schema), and the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It identifies the exact route, the fields to expect, and a current value. The only gap is that it doesn't specify the response format (e.g., JSON structure), but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, this is a minor omission. The description is complete for practical purposes.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description explains what the tool returns (burn_tax_rate and gas-price table), which adds meaning beyond the empty schema. It also provides the current value of burn_tax_rate as an example, which helps the agent understand the output. With no params, the baseline is 4, achieved because the description adds context about the data structure.

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 clearly identifies the resource (Terra Classic burn-tax parameters) and specifies the fields it exposes (burn_tax_rate and gas-price table). It distinguishes it from general Cosmos endpoints by explicitly stating the route is NOT /cosmos/..., which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like balance and validator_set. However, it doesn't name a specific sibling that it complements or differs from, but the route distinction is strong.

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 implies usage: an agent would use this to fetch the burn tax rate or gas prices on Terra Classic. It gives the exact route, which is a clear usage directive. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use burn_snapshot for burn history or contract_query for other params. There's no exclusion or alternative mention beyond the route correction.

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