Get Spend Policy Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return fields (maxSatsPerTx, maxSatsPerSession, spentThisSession, broadcastCount), which is useful. However, it does not explain what 'session' means or when totals reset, leaving a minor gap. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: one sentence and a return list. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded (what it does) followed by the return contract.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool, the description is complete enough. It states the purpose and lists the exact return fields. Given no output schema exists, the description fulfills that role. A minor ambiguity about the term 'session' prevents a perfect 5.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Per the guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters, and it correctly omits any.

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 'Show the active spend policy and session totals' uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource (spend policy and session totals). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ordnet_policy_set (which mutates policy) and ordnet_wallet_status (which shows wallet state).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that ordnet_policy_set is for changing the policy, nor does it state that this is a read-only check before spending. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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