Platform Treasury

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

The annotations contain only a title, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal the return shape (Dict with treasury balance and transaction history) and the data categories, which gives useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the call is read-only, whether it requires authentication, how fresh the data is, or whether there are any 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 compact and front-loads the main purpose before the return note. 'Economic transparency' is mildly vague and 'treasury balance' appears twice, but the overall structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description gives enough to know what will be returned and which financial categories are included. However, it lacks usage/selection context relative to the many financial sibling tools and omits safety or freshness details, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input side and there is nothing meaningful for the description to add. The baseline score of 4 for no-parameter tools 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 identifies the resource (platform treasury) and explains that the tool returns the treasury balance and transaction history, including fee collections, bounty payouts, and mission payouts. It doesn't use a strong imperative verb like 'get' or 'list', and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the meaning is clear.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus related siblings like civitae_cashout, civitae_missions, or civitae_status. The phrase 'Economic transparency' vaguely implies viewing platform-level financial data, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool routing are provided.

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