prepare_vote_calldata

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It discloses the tool does not sign transactions and returns data for external signing, and notes voting constraints. This adequately discloses behavioral traits beyond basic purpose.

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?

Two sentences plus a note. Front-loads the action and output format, then adds constraints. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words.

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?

Covers input, output, usage constraints, and the tool's role in a broader signing flow. No output schema exists, but description explains return values. Sibling tool names confirm differentiation. Complete for decision-making.

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 coverage is 50% (veNftId has description, allocations does not). Description adds meaning by summarizing parameters as 'veAERO NFT id + pool weights', clarifying the allocation structure. It doesn't detail constraints like maxItems, but the schema covers those.

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 tool builds unsigned calldata for a specific function (Aerodrome Voter.vote()), specifying verb, resource, and input. Sibling tools are about prediction and scanning, so this tool's distinct purpose is evident.

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?

Description implies usage context for voting calldata preparation, and includes important constraints (once per epoch, not final hour). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the context is clear enough given sibling tool names.

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