Set Spend Policy

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

The description goes well beyond what annotations provide, explaining the fail-closed simulation behavior, the conservative upper-bound calculation including change sent back to the agent wallet, and the effect of removing limits. It also notes that broadcasts behave exactly as before when no limits are set, giving a complete safety profile.

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 well-organized, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses concise paragraphs and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the formatting makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully covers return behavior ('Returns the active policy after applying changes'), side effects (fail-closed broadcasting), and the semantics of each parameter. For a tool with three optional parameters and no nested objects, this is complete guidance.

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?

Input-schema coverage is 100% with detailed per-parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds extra meaning by clarifying that limits apply to total output value including change, which is not explicitly in the schema's individual param descriptions. This additional context elevates the score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Configure') and clearly identifies the resource ('spend limits for this server session'), with the added context of being an 'agent safety layer.' It distinguishes itself from sibling ordnet_policy_status (view) by focusing on setting, not retrieving, policy.

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 explains when to use the tool: to impose spend limits that trigger fail-closed broadcast simulation. It clearly states the behavioral difference when no limits are set, providing strong contextual usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like ordnet_policy_status for viewing current policy, so it misses a clear exclusion.

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