vebetter_claim_rewards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that claiming likely involves an on-chain transaction, potential gas costs, or irreversibility. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral unknowns for a state-changing operation.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the action and object. There is no redundant or filler content, and it 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?

The tool performs a claim action, which is likely a transaction with side effects, yet the description lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., having available funds), return values (e.g., transaction hash), or any required authentication. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context but does not.

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% for both parameters ('appId' and 'amount'), so the schema already defines their meaning. The description adds no extra parameter context, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, but it doesn't provide format or source details beyond the basic schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Claim'), the resource ('accumulated B3TR rewards'), and the context ('from a VeBetter app'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'claim_vtho_rewards' by token type and source (VeBetter app).

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 when there are accumulated B3TR rewards from a VeBetter app, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'claim_vtho_rewards' or 'vebetter_check_available_funds'. No exclusions or related-tool guidance are provided.

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