MolTrust

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

Explains cryptographic anchoring and tamper-proofing, but omits critical behavioral details like transaction costs, gas fees, or failure modes since no annotations exist.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose followed by Args block; every sentence conveys unique information about mechanism or parameters.

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?

Adequately covers complex 10-parameter input domain and credential creation logic; defers to output schema for return values as appropriate.

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?

Comprehensive compensation for 0% schema coverage with examples (e.g., 'did:moltrust:...') and constraints (ISO 8601, future time), though some optional parameters lack semantic depth.

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?

Specific verb ('commit') and resource ('fantasy lineup') with clear mechanism (SHA-256/Base L2), though sibling differentiation (vs mt_fantasy_verify/history) remains implicit.

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?

Clear temporal context ('before contest start') and validation rule (contest_start_iso must be future), but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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