unwrap_phrs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It minimally describes the operation as a withdrawal-like process, but does not disclose potential fees, approval requirements, confirmations, or reversibility. More behavioral context is needed for a financial tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a clarifying analogy. No extraneous information.

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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, no output schema), and the description captures the main action. However, it misses a cross-reference to the sibling 'wrap_phrs' tool and does not explain the 'network' parameter. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema provides full parameter definitions. The description adds an example for the 'amount' parameter but does not mention the 'network' parameter, leaving it to the schema. This aligns with the baseline where schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (unwrap) and the resources (WPHRS to native PHRS), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'wrap_phrs' by mentioning the reversal nature and the WETH-style analogy.

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 implies the tool is used to convert wrapped tokens back to native, but does not explicitly state when to use it or provide guidance on prerequisites or alternatives. It assumes the user knows the context from the tool name and sibling relationship.

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