network

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the 'call it first' ordering convention, the gas/reward denomination ('Gas is paid in MON, rewards in 6-decimal USDC'), and the live pause state. It doesn't cover pagination or refresh semantics, but for a config readout that is minor.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is shown and immediately followed by the call-first instruction. The units sentence is slightly tangential but earns its place by clarifying returned values.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the fields returned (network, contracts, signing mode, caps, board settings) and their units. That is close to complete for a zero-parameter, side-effect-free config tool; only the response shape's exact structure is left unstated.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument readout and adds unit semantics (MON, 6-decimal USDC) that contextualize the values returned.

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?

States a specific verb (Show) and enumerates the exact resource contents: network, contracts, signing mode, spend caps, board settings including paused, maximum reward, fee. An agent knows precisely what this returns. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like balances or get_identity, which is the only gap.

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 directive 'Call it first' gives explicit ordering guidance that is unusually actionable. There is no stated when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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