claim_reward

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return values but does not disclose the state-changing nature of claiming, whether it is one-time, whether prior settlement is required, or what happens on failure. This is a meaningful gap for a financial claim operation.

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?

A single sentence that states the action, condition, and return values with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded and easily parsed.

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 tool with a single simple parameter, the description covers the basics: when to use it, what it does, and what it returns. However, it omits important context such as whether claim_reward must follow settle_round, whether it can only be called once, and what happens if the reward is unavailable.

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, roomId, is already described as '房间 ID 号'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific action — claiming a USDC reward after a game ends — and describes what the tool returns (reward amount and transaction hash). This distinguishes it from siblings like mint_test_usdc or settle_round.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: '游戏结束后' (after the game ends). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as settle_round, so it falls slightly short of full routing guidance.

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