claim_voucher

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does real work: it reveals this is a one-time, non-repeatable mutation, specifies the credit amount, and flags the state precondition (no open positions or orders) that causes failure. It stops short of saying how failure surfaces (error vs. silent no-op) or what the call returns, which matters for a write with no output schema.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the action and reward, the second defines the gate. The most decision-relevant facts (one-time, amount, precondition) are front-loaded with no 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 zero-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs to decide whether to call it: what it grants, that it is single-use, and the blocking state condition. Minor gap: no hint about the result (transaction hash, balance change) or how a rejected claim is reported.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies nothing is passed in — the wallet is fixed as the server wallet — leaving no parameter ambiguity.

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?

States a concrete verb (claim), the exact resource and amount (one-time 1,000 paper USDso perps credit), the target (server wallet) and environment (testnet play money). No sibling tool performs anything resembling a credit claim, so it is unambiguously separable from list_markets, get_account, place_order, etc.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition that also functions as a when-not-to-use rule: 'Only works if the wallet holds no perp positions or orders.' No alternative tool is named, but there is no plausible substitute action here, so the guidance is operationally complete.

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