build_claimreward_unsigned

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it does not sign, returns unsigned JSON and instructions, and defaults to testnet. No destructive or state-modifying behavior is mentioned, which is appropriate as it only assembles a transaction.

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 a single concise sentence that includes all critical information: what it does, output format, that it never signs, and default network. There is no wasted text.

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?

While the description covers purpose and output, it lacks context on what a ClaimReward transaction is and how it relates to sibling tools like compute_reward and reward_status. No mention of prerequisites or error conditions, which is adequate but could be improved.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It only mentions 'testnet by default' for the network parameter, but does not explain 'issuer' or 'account'. This is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states it assembles an unsigned ClaimReward transaction and returns unsigned JSON with offline signing instructions. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'build_*_unsigned' tools by naming the specific transaction type.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compute_reward or reward_status. It only implies usage for building a ClaimReward transaction and notes it never signs.

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