spend_authority_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares read-only behavior, that enforcement happens on-chain, and that it defaults to a configured wallet. It does not contradict any annotations (none provided) and adds useful context about trust boundaries, though it lacks detail on error conditions or authentication requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences cover the purpose, output fields, read-only nature, enforcement, and default wallet. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies what data is returned (cap, ceiling, spent/left, revoked), the read-only behavior, and default wallet. It could be improved by mentioning error cases (e.g., if authority doesn't exist) but is still solid.

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 coverage is 100% with one optional parameter 'owner'. The description adds value by explicitly stating to omit it to use the configured wallet, which goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 it shows the on-chain SpendAuthority (ADR-008), listing specific details like per-payment cap, daily ceiling, usage, and revocation status. It uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with payments, subscriptions, or data purchases.

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 explains it is read-only and defaults to the configured SOLINKIFY_OWNER_WALLET, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though no sibling tool duplicates this functionality.

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