list_earn_strategies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Browse,' implying read-only, but does not elaborate on pagination, sorting, authentication, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise at only two words, but this comes at the cost of essential information. It lacks structure and detail, wasting the opportunity to convey purpose and usage. An effective description would be concise yet informative.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results, especially compared to sibling tools that may have richer documentation.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no meaningful information about the five parameters (asset, lock_type, cursor, limit, ascending), leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them. The tool needs explicit parameter documentation.

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 'Browse available earn strategies.' clearly states the action (browse/list) and the resource (earn strategies). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming a specific resource, but lacks detail on scope or filtering, which prevents a higher score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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