getUserRewards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys a non-mutating read operation via 'Returns' and 'Shows', and adds eligibility context. It does not disclose behavior for ineligible addresses or empty reward states, but for a simple query tool this is a minor gap.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose and a key eligibility constraint with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description explains what it returns, for whom, and under what conditions. There is no output schema, but the 'accrued and claimable amounts' phrasing sufficiently previews the result. Only minor edge-case behavior, such as the response for ineligible wallets, is missing.

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 100% and the only parameter, address, is already described accurately in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation ('Returns'), the resource ('KSKD rewards'), and the scope ('for a wallet address'). It distinguishes the tool as a read-only rewards lookup, unlike action-oriented siblings like claimRewards, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly.

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 eligibility note ('meeting uptime and minimum position thresholds') gives useful context for when results are meaningful, and 'claimable' implies this could precede claimRewards. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over getEmissions or claimRewards, so guidance is implied rather than direct.

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