bitflow_get_keeper_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the auth model (public endpoints, no API key), a rate limit (500 req/min), and a network constraint (mainnet only). It does not explicitly state the read-only/non-mutating nature or the failure mode when no address is supplied, keeping it below 5.

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 is front-loaded and readable, but the opening line largely restates the tool name before the second sentence elaborates, and the closing 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is promotional and not needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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-optional-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: auth model, rate limit, network availability, and what data is returned (contracts and order history). Return-format detail would be nice but is not required to call it 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 coverage is 100% and the single optional param already documents 'uses wallet if not specified', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or default semantics for stacksAddress beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get Bitflow Keeper user info and orders') and elaborates with 'Retrieves user's keeper contracts and order history', which lets an agent distinguish it from bitflow_get_order (single order) and bitflow_get_keeper_contract. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so a 5 isn't warranted.

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 supplies contextual gating ('Bitflow is only available on mainnet', no API key needed) that is genuinely useful, but never states when to call this versus the closely related bitflow_get_keeper_contract, bitflow_get_order, or bitflow_cancel_order. The trailing 'earning_opportunities' tip is a cross-sell rather than guidance for this tool.

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