predict_amendment_activation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read operation (no side effects), accesses the Amendments singleton, requires no admin privileges, and costs 1 RPC call. This is transparent about resource usage and access requirements.

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 three sentences long, starting with the core purpose, then details, then cost/resource info. It is efficient and front-loaded. One minor issue: the first sentence is a bit cryptic ('Project when amendments now holding majority will enable') but still understandable.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (not shown but context indicates), the description doesn't need to cover return values. It adequately explains the purpose, input (though parameter not described), methodology, and constraints. It is complete for a small, focused prediction tool.

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 single parameter 'network' has an enum of 'mainnet' and 'testnet' but the description adds no explanation of its meaning or impact. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should have explained that the parameter selects the network to query. The schema alone shows the enum, but the description does not add value.

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 the tool's function: 'Project when amendments now holding majority will enable.' It specifies key details like >80% support, 5-day Xahau window, and seconds/days remaining. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_amendment_status or check_amendment_blocked, which focus on current status rather than future prediction.

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 provides context: 'Reads the Amendments singleton — no admin node needed. 1 RPC read.' This implies it's a lightweight, non-admin read operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_amendment_status, so usage boundaries are implied but not explicit.

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