redeem_tlp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states a non-obvious behavior: redeeming does not directly return tokens to the wallet and requires a subsequent claim() call. This is critical context that prevents incorrect use.

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 yet informative, consisting of three sentences. It leads with the main purpose, immediately flags the critical claim() requirement, and ends with the flow and environment prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description provides the necessary context for a two-parameter redeem step: the full workflow, the non-direct return behavior, and the required environment variable. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 thorough descriptions for both parameters: share ('raw integer, omit to redeem all') and poolIndex ('0' = mTLP, '1' = iTLP). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 purpose is clearly stated with a specific verb and resource: 'Redeem TLP tokens (already unstaked) for underlying assets.' It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the 'already unstaked' precondition and by placing itself between unstake and claim in the full flow.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool via the full flow: unstake → redeem_tlp → claim. It also warns that tokens are not returned directly and that claim() must be called afterward, which is a clear behavioral guideline. The PRIVATE_KEY requirement is a concrete prerequisite.

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