atstake_legion_claim_credit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden well: it explains the payout cap (smaller of credit and unpaid amount), claim-order payout behavior, and that unpaid remainder stays on the credit. It also discloses the unlocked-wallet requirement. It could be stronger by mentioning transaction finality or fee behavior, but the core claim semantics are clear.

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 front-loaded with the core claim action, then adds prerequisites and payout mechanics. It is generally efficient, though the trailing earning_opportunities tip is somewhat tangential. No major structural issues.

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 one-parameter claim tool without annotations or an output schema, the description covers the important behavioral constraints: vault redemption prerequisite, wallet unlock, payout cap, order, and remainder handling. It does not describe the return value or exact failure modes, but an agent has enough context to decide and invoke correctly.

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%, and the only parameter's enum and meaning are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning about the side parameter beyond the schema. Per the high-coverage baseline, a 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb+resource: claim the sBTC behind a credit earned by a passed proposal after market resolution. It also distinguishes the action from vault redemption by stating that it only works once the vault has been redeemed. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 gives clear prerequisites and a key exclusion: only works once the vault has been redeemed, and requires an unlocked wallet. It also points to earning_opportunities as related discovery. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as atstake_legion_redeem_vault, so it falls short of a 5.

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