stackspot_claim_rewards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that an unlocked wallet is required, that the tool is mainnet-only, and exactly what value moves (contributed STX back to everyone, sBTC yield to the VRF winner). It omits failure/edge behavior, such as what happens if the caller already claimed or the pot isn't finalized.

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?

Payout mechanics are front-loaded and the prerequisite and identifier-format notes follow logically. The trailing 'Tip' pointing at earning_opportunities is tangential to claiming but short enough not to derail the read.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: prerequisites, value flow, wallet state, and network. What's missing is outcome reporting—whether a transaction hash is returned and what happens on a failed or duplicate claim.

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 description's note about bare contract name vs. fully-qualified identifier largely restates the schema's own example. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already does the parameter work.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource (claim rewards from a completed Stackspot stacking lottery pot), and the second explains the exact payout mechanics per participant. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like stackspot_list_pots, stackspot_get_pot_state, or stackspot_join_pot.

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 states the precondition plainly: stacking must be complete and a winner selected by VRF. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or exclusion case (e.g., what to call if the pot is still open), but the trigger condition is unambiguous for an eligible caller.

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