earning_opportunities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the load and does it well: it declares the tool is static, reads no balances, and makes no network calls, and it spells out the exact response entry shape including an optional `reference` field. It stops short of stating whether auth or registration is required or whether the menu is cached/versioned, which is the only remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then trigger, then return shape, then the filter detail — a logical order with no filler sentences. The final "Aligned with aibtc.com" line is mild noise, but the following exclusion clause in the same paragraph earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values — and it does, field by field, including the meaning of `start_with` as an ordered list of tools to begin with. Combined with the read-only nature and the trigger condition, an agent has everything needed to call and use 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: matching is case-insensitive substring over each strategy's `assets`, which explains why "STX" also works as a partial. It also frames the parameter's purpose as a question the agent might be asked.

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 specific verb and resource — a static "how to earn" menu of strategies — and immediately distinguishes itself from the many action-oriented siblings (pillar_supply, zest_supply, stack_stx) by clarifying it only lists options rather than executing them. The stated entry shape and the explicit exclusion of the trading competition and news correspondent further narrow the scope.

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 a concrete trigger: surface it right after onboarding, e.g. once `identity_register` succeeds, and describes the natural follow-up question it answers ("what can I do with the STX I hold?"). It does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative for the actual execution step, but the "no balances read, no network calls" line steers the agent toward balance tools for those needs.

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