Get a party's rewards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: three granularities, default summary, date range limit of 90 days for daily, optional rewardType filter, and default limit for transfers. It does not mention error conditions, permissions, or rate limits, but the provided detail is substantial.

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 brief yet comprehensive, using a single well-structured sentence with semicolons to separate granularities. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately provides key details without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return structure for each granularity in reasonable detail. It explains summary returns, daily totals (with range limit), and transfers (with limit). Missing aspects like error handling or required permissions, but overall sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds extra semantics: it clarifies what each granularity returns (e.g., 'current earnings metrics (latest round, 1h avg, 24h avg, incl. post-traffic-cost CC/USD)') and mentions the 90-day limit for daily, which is absent from the schema.

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 retrieves a Canton party's mining/validator rewards and then breaks down three granularities (summary, daily, transfers) with specific details, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_balance or get_transactions.

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?

While the description explains the three granularities and their use cases, it does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., get_transactions for transaction history) nor specify when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary or comparative advice.

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