compose_dividend

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds no behavioral context. It does not state whether the transaction is signed, broadcast, or merely prepared, nor does it mention potential side effects like balance checks or fee requirements. The word 'compose' is standard but not elaborated on, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal and does not explain the resulting transaction structure, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens after composition. It lacks essential context for an agent to understand the full behavior and expected outcome, making it insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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%, with each parameter already well-described (e.g., 'Asset whose holders will receive dividends'). The description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so it meets the baseline of 3 without exceeding it.

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 verb 'compose' and the resource 'a transaction to distribute dividends to all holders of an asset', which is specific and distinguishes it from other compose_* siblings. It conveys exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 when to use the tool (when distributing dividends) but does not provide explicit alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. It doesn't mention that other compose tools exist for different transaction types, so guidance is limited to inferred context.

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