Get AA State Vars

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior: raw smallest units, sorted map-like output, 128-character prefix limit, network default behavior, and the instruction to never show raw integers directly. This goes well beyond the 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?

Every sentence carries relevant information: purpose, bounds, output behavior, network handling, and amount formatting. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers necessary edge-case guidance without redundancy.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is quite complete: it covers network selection, raw units, output sorting, and prefix length. Minor gaps remain around the exact interpretation of var_prefix_to and var_prefix_from, such as whether the range is inclusive, but the overall guidance is sufficient for safe and correct use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the network parameter, defaulting to mainnet, and clarifies the prefix/range boundary options and length constraint. The address parameter is semantically obvious from the tool purpose, and var_prefix_to/from are reasonably inferable from the prefix/range mention, though not fully specified.

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 opens with 'Raw hub read' and states exactly what it returns: autonomous-agent state variables, optionally bounded by prefix/range. This clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from related tools like balance or attestation readers, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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 operational context: it explains how to select the network, notes the mainnet default, and instructs the agent to confirm the network with the user when it is not explicit. It also provides formatting guidance for amounts. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough.

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