harvest_reward

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds the critical prerequisite that PRIVATE_KEY is required in .env, which is valuable context. However, it does not disclose that harvesting is an on-chain transaction involving gas fees, potential failures, or that rewards are transferred to the user. More detail on side effects is needed.

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 consists of two short, information-dense sentences. The first sentence states the core action and purpose; the second provides a crucial prerequisite. There is zero redundancy or irrelevant phrasing.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and failure behavior. It does not mention what the tool returns on success, whether it can be called when no rewards are pending, or any failure conditions. The description is insufficient for a tool that likely executes a financial transaction.

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 input schema already provides full documentation for the only parameter (stakePoolIndex), including the meaning of '0' and '1'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 'Harvest' and the resource 'pending staking reward tokens', making its purpose unmistakable. It also gives a concrete example (TYPUS tokens) to remove ambiguity. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'claim' or 'collect_funding_fee'.

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 usage is for collecting staking rewards, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'claim' or 'collect_funding_fee'. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts, so guidance is only implicit.

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