atstake_subject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two things that matter most: read-only and no wallet needed. It also hints at content (addresses, scripts, indices) but says nothing about freshness (live chain read vs cached), completeness, or response shape.

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 core content is front-loaded and the second paragraph earns its place as a trust/verification rationale. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is an unrelated upsell that dilutes focus and gives the agent a misleading next-step pointer.

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-param, no-output-schema tool, the description must convey the return shape, and it does only at a high level. Terms like 'PoX-5', 'legion', and 'YES proof' are assumed-knowledge, leaving an unfamiliar agent guessing about what fields actually come back.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed ('read-only, no wallet needed').

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 resource set: twenty El Salvador reserve addresses, their output scripts, and PoX-5 reward cycle indices. That is far more concrete than a restatement of the name. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'lists') and leans on opaque domain jargon ('legion', 'YES proof'), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It implies when to use it ('anyone arguing either side in a legion should be reading these on Bitcoin directly'), which is contextual guidance rather than an explicit trigger. No sibling is differentiated -- atstake_market_status and atstake_position are near neighbours, and the only tool named is earning_opportunities, which is an unrelated cross-sell.

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