Get Airdrop Eligibility

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds useful behavioral context: it mentions the cost ('Costs 1 credit') and the outcome ('Shows eligible airdrops with claim links'). It does not contradict 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 concise and front-loaded, with four short sentences each adding distinct information: purpose, output, constraint, and cost. There is minimal redundancy, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, the input requirement, the output/behavior (eligible airdrops and claim links), and cost. It is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly without needing additional context.

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 schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'address' with a clear description ('Solana wallet address (base58 format)'). The description reinforces this with 'Solana addresses only' but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function with a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'airdrop eligibility', and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on airdrops specifically. It also specifies the input type (Solana address) and output (eligible airdrops with claim links).

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to check airdrop eligibility for a Solana address. It also includes an exclusion ('Solana addresses only'), which helps the agent avoid using it for non-Solana addresses. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it compared to sibling tools.

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