vebetter_check_available_funds

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 implies a read-only operation via the word 'check', but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any side effects. The added context about B3TR funds and rewards pool is helpful but does not explain what the agent should expect from the call.

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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and a simple read operation. The description tells the agent what it does and which parameter to supply, but it does not explain what the response will contain (e.g., the fund amount). Given the simplicity, it is adequate for basic selection and invocation, but it leaves the return value to the agent's inference.

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 100% (appId is described as 'VeBetter App ID'). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning by clarifying that the appId refers to the app for which funds are checked, but this does not significantly go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('Check'), a clear resource ('available B3TR funds in the rewards pool'), and scope ('for an app'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vebetter_claim_rewards or vechainstats_get_balance, making it evident what the tool does.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the app must exist) or exclusions, only implying usage through its purpose statement.

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