ponzu_claim_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: one-time claim, early withdrawal handling, and NFT burn. It lacks detail on authentication or rate limits but covers critical side effects.

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 three focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and provides necessary behavioral details efficiently.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main workflow and side effects. It omits return value or success confirmation, but given low complexity, this is adequate.

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 description adds minimal extra meaning. It mentions 'PonzuBottle NFT' for tokenId but no additional format or constraint details beyond 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 claims vested tokens from a Ponzu presale, identifies it as a one-time claim per PonzuBottle NFT, and distinguishes it from siblings like ponzu_claim_eth by specifying the token/ETH difference.

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 implicitly guides usage by noting one-time nature and vesting effects, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use. The context of siblings suggests token vs ETH claims.

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