legion_contribute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it warns that real sBTC is spent and not refundable, states there is no withdrawal function, notes the wallet spending-limit metering, explains that crossing minimum weight grants MEMBER status, and requires an unlocked wallet. These are exactly the irreversible and prerequisite behaviors an agent must know before invoking.

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 warning about spending real sBTC and non-refundability is front-loaded in caps, followed by the alternative, limit, membership, and prerequisite details. The paragraphs are short, structured, and every sentence adds actionable information or a useful routing hint.

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, no-output-schema mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the critical gaps: irreversibility, no withdrawal, spending-limit behavior, wallet unlock prerequisite, membership side effect, and the alternative funding tool. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears missing.

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 single parameter 'sats' is already documented as the amount of sBTC to contribute in sats with an exclusive minimum. The description adds some relevant context by saying the contribution is metered against the wallet's sats spending limit, but it does not add amount syntax or constraints beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for a fully documented single parameter.

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: send sBTC to the pool and receive voting weight proportional to contribution. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling legion_sponsor, which funds the pool without a vote. An agent can identify what this tool does and how it differs from nearby tools without opening schemas.

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 explicitly names the alternative action and condition: use legion_sponsor to fund the pool without a vote. It also provides a clear pointer to earning_opportunities for asset yield options. The when-to-use and when-to-use-an-alternative guidance is explicit.

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